I got my rejection letter from agency #3 today (after being accepted to my first 2 agencies), and I'm just dying to post its contents on this site. Problem is, they had the audacity to mark it as "For Official Use Only".
I've contacted my company's security to find out what restricitions this may place on me, but given that they never responded to my last email, I'm not optimistic about getting a timely response. Does anyone know where I can (quickly) obtain information about what I'm allowed to do with this document. Also, how do I place PDF documents on this site?
Polygraphers and those associated with the clearance process in general never cease to amaze me. They actually sent me a rejection letter riddled with factual errors.
Basically the letter says that since I was unwilling to rehash my previous agency's egregious conduct with them, they can't trust me with classified material. There's also a cryptic reference to the fact that while I was in college I played yahoo checkers online, including with a 13 year old female, but no sex was involved. That's seems to be the entirety of their claim against me. Amazing.
Of course, I maintain that I still have no obligation to give government agencies guestimates for the bra sizes of Junior High students at my previous Church or discuss whether or not they are sluts trying to have sex with older men. Besides, as I repeatedly told them, I have already made much of what happened a matter of public record on this website in the past.
Thanks
Onesimus,
The "For Official Use Only" designation governs how the letter is to be handled by government employees. You shouldn't take offense at it. While a third party would not be able to obtain the letter's release under the Freedom of Information Act, you are free to do with it as you please.
While our current message board software does not allow the posting of attachments, if you could scan the letter and e-mail it as a JPEG or GIF file to me at maschke@antipolygraph.org, I'll be happy to convert it to PDF format and post it on-line here. If you'd like any personally identifying information removed, I can do that, too.
Onesimus:
Please take George's advise and post the letter here. I'd love to read the cryptic reference to the checkers game.
Here's the letter:
http://antipolygraph.org/documents/onesimus-letter.pdf
In the interest of getting this information out quickly, here are my initial comments, subject to later revision:
I was told by NSA, when I called the number on the rejection letter, that the document should not have been marked "For Official Use Only", and that I could simply cross out that header. This change was made at their request. Additionally, my name and social security number have been removed from the letter.
letter: John Doe was sponsored for access to the NSA's SCI in August 2005. A records check conducted by the NSA's Contractor Clearances branch revealed John Doe was cleared with another government agency at the SCI level between 2000 and 2003, and was then again cleared at this level by a second government agency in March 2005.
me: I was cleared by a second government agency in 2003, not 2005.
letter: During this exam, and when questioned regarding involvement in crime, John Doe stated he knows he has a concern with the crime question, but refused to cooperate to resolve.
letter: He claimed to have discussed his concern in a prior 2003 interview with another government agency, and made a promise to himself that he would never discuss it again.
letter: He denied being involved in any type of illegal sexual activity and will not discuss this any further with NSA Security.
I believe that I was more than sufficiently candid with NSA. I told all of my polygraphers I had an issue with the crime question because of what the previous agency had done to me. My SF86 form has the contact information for one of the Junior High kid's parents and NSA is perfectly capable of going to the kids or their parents and asking questions if they do no accept my truthful denial of any wrongdoing, especially considering that one of my polygraphers bragged about the quality of their background investigators. NSA polygraph division's technical director told me that he had already read the account of what happened to me online. When I mentioned a few of the things the previous agency said to me, he himself stated it was not an appropriate line of questioning. Thus, the only questions I did not answer were those that we mutually agreed were not appropriate to ask.
letter: When questioned regarding what he had discussed during his previous interviews with another government agency, John Doe initially refused to talk about what he told them. He eventually admitted talking about playing Internet checkers with a 13 year old female, but stated it was just fun and no sexual activity was involved.
me: While it is true that I have played checkers online with a 13 year old female on yahoo's website, I never told this to my previous agency, nor did I tell this agency that I had. My polygrapher had asked me to remove the word "serious" from the serious crime question and to tell him anything remotely related to a crime. I did so, and he quickly noted that things like traffic violations and under-age drinking were of no concern to him and told me that he didn't even bother to record anything I said. In order to go above and beyond what was required of me, I told my polygrapher that I would even tell him things that I had no personal problem with, but might be viewed by others as bad. It was in this context that I mentioned checkers. Given it's inclusion on my rejection letter, apparently I was right. My polygrapher asked me if sex was involved and I truthfully answered "no". That was as far as the discussion went on that topic. The fact that I have played checkers online is of no adjudicative significance and none of the government's business, regardless of that person's age, sex, or even bra size. I only gave this information because I was going out of my way to be cooperative. I think it reflects very poorly on them that they have decided to include this information in their rejection letter.
letter: lack of candor... could indicate that the person may not properly safeguard classified information.
me: No reasonable person would think someone who refusal to be sexually harassed by the government a second time is an indication that someone cannot safeguard classified information.
Additional note: The letter makes no mention of how I was cursed at, yelled at, and otherwise harassed during my exams. Eventually, I suppose I will have to take the time to detail all of this.
Onesimus,
I love it. How could the NSA have turned their backs on such of a stellar candidate? Shoot, what were they thinking???!! Hahaha. Did you forget who/what you were applying for? There has to be a clear line of delineation between the B.K. applicant and those who want to work for the NSA or any other entrusted organization. Let me get this straight, you walk in, then you tell them your not going to discuss this that and the other thing, then tell them the reason is some other agency "made" you sit up at night and play checkers with some 13 year old, etc., etc., etc., come one man...grow up. In a separate forum on this "website" you stated you were called a child molester, etc., etc.,
"I have been accused of being a child molester, someone who views child pornography, a spy, someone who has secret meetings with foreign nationals, and of controlling my breathing during a test, among other things. I have been cursed at, yelled at, and called a jerk." "I have been told that the Junior High students that I worked with at my Church were sluts who were trying to have sex with older men."
My man.....You go into an exam and refuse to discuss items that are OPEN for discussion...start squirming and worming about "child issues" and then expect them to do anything other than toss your ass out with the garbage? You're not a first round draft pick bro and don't warrant special treatment...stand up like a man and accept accountability for your late nights playing checkers and all your "time" spent with kids 1/10th your age, look in the mirror and stop playing the sour grapes card. Your bringing discredit to this "website" and anyone with two brain cells rubbing together sees through your BS and wonders why you aren't hanging out on the mandatory PO/SO testing forum.
~Spark
Quote from: spark on Mar 14, 2006, 02:28 AMOnesimus,
I love it. How could the NSA have turned their backs on such of a stellar candidate? Shoot, what were they thinking???!! Hahaha. Did you forget who/what you were applying for? There has to be a clear line of delineation between the B.K. applicant and those who want to work for the NSA or any other entrusted organization. Let me get this straight, you walk in, then you tell them your not going to discuss this that and the other thing, then tell them the reason is some other agency "made" you sit up at night and play checkers with some 13 year old, etc., etc., etc., come one man...grow up. In a separate forum on this "website" you stated you were called a child molester, etc., etc.,
"I have been accused of being a child molester, someone who views child pornography, a spy, someone who has secret meetings with foreign nationals, and of controlling my breathing during a test, among other things. I have been cursed at, yelled at, and called a jerk." "I have been told that the Junior High students that I worked with at my Church were sluts who were trying to have sex with older men."
My man.....You go into an exam and refuse to discuss items that are OPEN for discussion...start squirming and worming about "child issues" and then expect them to do anything other than toss your ass out with the garbage? You're not a first round draft pick bro and don't warrant special treatment...stand up like a man and accept accountability for your late nights playing checkers and all your "time" spent with kids 1/10th your age, look in the mirror and stop playing the sour grapes card. Your bringing discredit to this "website" and anyone with two brain cells rubbing together sees through your BS and wonders why you aren't hanging out on the mandatory PO/SO testing forum.
~Spark
Spark,
Your innuendo-laden post provides an excellent example of the kind of "admission inflation" that we warn about at pp. 72-75 of the 4th edition of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf).If we take Onesimus' posts at face value--and I see no reason why not to: after all, he even informed his NSA polygraph interrogators of his posts here--then I think an honest observer familiar with national security law and procedure could only conclude that there is nothing in his background that would preclude him from being granted SCI access. The NSA's decision to deny Onesimus such access appears not only to be arbitrary and capricious, but an act of
petty vengeance for his having dared to tell the polygraph emperor, as it were, that he is naked.
My question would be, unless I missed something,
since sexual activity is supposed to be an
out-of-bounds subject for polygraphers, how did this
subject ever come up ? With my NSA polygrapher saying
that he masturbated to pornography on the Internet,
he was hoping that I would make a comment about it,
then it would be an open subject. The rejection letter
is obviously crap, unless there was something
substantial to go on. Unfortunately, the letter will
follow him to other cleared agencies. No wonder, NSA
is a messed up place to work; never again, will I have
anything to do with them...
George:
Who uses inuendos on this site more than your anti polygraph posters? You talk about the pot calling the kettle black!! You are willing to take the anti poly posts at face value but don't want to appy the same standard to the polygraph posters. I also have news for you. A polygrapher can not afford the luxury of being as naieve as you. We always approach our work with open minds and do not make a preconceived decison.We wait until the exam is over and then we base our decision on our work. You call it petty vengeance but I call it a lack of common sense when someone wants a job and then goes in and antagonizes the people involved in the hiring process.
retcopper,
I hardly calling the refusal to discuss something, as
antagonistic - looks like you are doing one of your
ten little acting routines right now; you are just
pissed off, or acting as such, that Onesimus didn't
succomb to the polygraph rubberhose. Anyway, in the
IC community, subjects that have to do with sexuality
are, supposedly, out-of-bounds. That is why subjects
have to be cooerced/tricked into
"opening up the door". I can't believe that my niece,
who was a criminal justice major, is considering the
sleazy, guttural profession of polygraphy.
Quote from: spark on Mar 14, 2006, 02:28 AMOnesimus,
I love it. How could the NSA have turned their backs on such of a stellar candidate? Shoot, what were they thinking???!! Hahaha. Did you forget who/what you were applying for? There has to be a clear line of delineation between the B.K. applicant and those who want to work for the NSA or any other entrusted organization. Let me get this straight, you walk in, then you tell them your not going to discuss this that and the other thing, then tell them the reason is some other agency "made" you sit up at night and play checkers with some 13 year old, etc., etc., etc., come one man...grow up. In a separate forum on this "website" you stated you were called a child molester, etc., etc.,
"I have been accused of being a child molester, someone who views child pornography, a spy, someone who has secret meetings with foreign nationals, and of controlling my breathing during a test, among other things. I have been cursed at, yelled at, and called a jerk." "I have been told that the Junior High students that I worked with at my Church were sluts who were trying to have sex with older men."
My man.....You go into an exam and refuse to discuss items that are OPEN for discussion...start squirming and worming about "child issues" and then expect them to do anything other than toss your ass out with the garbage? You're not a first round draft pick bro and don't warrant special treatment...stand up like a man and accept accountability for your late nights playing checkers and all your "time" spent with kids 1/10th your age, look in the mirror and stop playing the sour grapes card. Your bringing discredit to this "website" and anyone with two brain cells rubbing together sees through your BS and wonders why you aren't hanging out on the mandatory PO/SO testing forum.
~Spark
Another false account of what happened -- does the arrogance of polygraphers know any bound? Spark decides to insert his verion of the facts despite not being a witness to anything that occurred. Go back and read NSA's rejection letter without reading my responses. Even on NSA's own terms Spark's statements are clearly false.
Personally, I consider this rejection to be a compliment. The security division made no secret that they didn't like me. My second polygrapher encouraged me to drop out of the clearance process and told me that I would fail my next polygraph exam. NSA polygraph division's technical director seemed quite happy when I got ready to walk out after his initial 30 minute curse/yell session. He wanted me to say into the microphone that I was dropping out of the process. The best they could come up with to reject me with was my lawfuly playing a game on the internet, and my refusal to answer questions we both agreed were inappropriate.
Onesimus,
I have been through it myself; there is nothing one
can do about the polygraph - it cannot be appealed,
or reviewed. It is NSA's chicken-shit way out -
Executive Orders have been written to protect the
Intelligence Community. Thus, it is used abusively and
there is nothing one can do about it. NSA made sure
that the poly results are exempt from the FOIA and that
legal counsel is not allowed during the poly test (thus,
if they get abusive, it boils down to he said/she said).
The whole process is just a big farse...
Even though I currently work in the IC (non-NSA), I
know better than to accept what is called, a CCA, or
conditional offer of employment, dependent on NSA
processing. What is ridiculous, is that NSA won't
accept CIA clearances, because I believe, that NSA tries
to screw everyone. I'm sure they enjoy using the
polygraph to yank clearances and screw up peoples'
careers by denying clearances (grantings/denials are
put into an Intel-wide database).
What is the best way to request that they review my clearance decision? Should I focus narrowly on what little reason they gave for my rejection, or should I broadly list all of the errors/inconsistencies/inappropriate behaviors that occurred during my polygraph examinations? When I did this during my polygraph examinations, all it served to do was greatly irritate my polygraphers. Presumably, this is because they are fully aware that much of what they say is nonsensical or contradictory, but simply don't care. It's all part of the show.
Onesimus,
I suspect that the NSA is unlikely to reverse its earlier decision. That being the case, if I were in your shoes, I would choose to document everything when contesting the denial, if only because it seems to be your sole administrative opportunity to set the record straight.
Onesimus,
You can appeal the denial letter, but since no one
can get hold of the poly charts (no wonder why), one
cannot go after the charts. I would just stick to the
"facts", if you can call it that. To get into NSA, years
ago, I had to appeal the decision - I just went through
the letter, sentence by sentence, and had a bunch of
people write me letters of recomendations. Looking
back, I can laugh now, realizing how ignorant I was
of the whole process and mystified by the almighty NSA.
I think NSA likes those, who grew up in that type of
atmosphere, in submission; the poly is used like a
whipping belt.
The cards are stacked against applicants and NSA
employees; Executive Orders have made sure that NSA
will always have a way out - exempt from the
WhistleBlower Act, polygraph agencies are exempt from
having to accept clearance transfers from other
agencies, any information up for review by Congress
can be classified out-of-reach, and polygraph results
exempt from FOIA. Clearances can be yanked without
question (unlike a DoD clearance, which can be
appealed, mind you, with a lawyer). If NSA has a
problem with an employee/contractor, they will hook
them up, fail them, or have them fail a psychological
test. Unlike NSA, I have never heard of the DoD
yanking clearances without question. It is a bit
interesting though, NSA is a bit passive-aggressive,
in that they will "get" people, when they change
companies, or leave the Government to go to a
contractor, or vice versa. So, if one has any issues,
then one has to stay, at least past the next five-year
DoD TS clearance update - but, NSA can schedule one
for a poly anytime, and fail them.
You have nothing to lose by going through the appeals
process. If you didn't think you were going to pass,
you could have opted out of the processing and saved
getting an actual denial.
Here is a link to the apology letter I got from my previous agency.
http://antipolygraph.org/documents/onesimus-apology-letter.pdf
Another letter full of bullshit...
This was a rejection based on LACK OF CANDOR. An applicant for a National Security position who refuses to be candid and completely forthcoming with his answers, doesn't deserve a clearance. That, in itself, is an integrity issue that would send a red flag. You're the only guy I've ever met who goes into a security interview, essentially pleads the 5th Amendment, and then expects a clearance. haha.
Quote from: PentaFed on Mar 24, 2006, 10:27 PMThis was a rejection based on LACK OF CANDOR. An applicant for a National Security position who refuses to be candid and completely forthcoming with his answers, doesn't deserve a clearance. That, in itself, is an integrity issue that would send a red flag. You're the only guy I've ever met who goes into a security interview, essentially pleads the 5th Amendment, and then expects a clearance. haha.
I didn't plead the the 5th. I am not guilty of anything. You are correct that this an integrity issue. I am proud of my decision not to be sexually harassed by the government a second time.
Onesimus,
I'm not sure I would want someone in the NSA with anything of a sexual nature that is so sensitive the subject could not candidly talk about it, in a position where blackmail is a habit. I don't consider that sexual harrasment, many may. Just one individuals opinion.
Quote from: Onesimus on Mar 25, 2006, 04:07 AM
I didn't plead the the 5th. I am not guilty of anything. You are correct that this an integrity issue. I am proud of my decision not to be sexually harassed by the government a second time.
You did, essentially, plead the fifth because you were not CANDID and UPFRONT with the information requested. As I said, whether you are guilty of anything here is not the issue. The issue is your lack of candor and your lack of willingness to talke about the issues. WHen requeting a clearance of this level an applicant should be willing to discuss anything about himself. That lack of willingness is,all by itself, an indication that a person's chracter may be flawed. I'll say it again. It's not that you are guilty of whatever behavior you're refusing to discuss, it's your unwillingness to discuss it that is the concern. If you are at such a point in your life where you feel that further discussion of any topic in your life is just not worth it to you, then you basically have denied your own clearance. If I go to a job intereview and refuse to discuss my work history, I'm not getting the job, period. That's my choice in that case, not the empoyer's. Just from what I've read on this forum, I can see that you do seem to have a constitutional inability to own what is yours without blaming it on something else. Perhaps its not an inability, just a strong unwillingness, I don't know. Either way, I'd say that is probably related to your troubles with the clearance rather than whatever it is that you refuse to discuss. The author of this wesbite has a worthy cause in his arguments against the reliablity of polygraphs. Unlike him, you have a political cause against being forced to discuss aspects of your private life when requesting a highly top secret clearance. Your cause is just plain bullshit and will go nowhere because you're working against the government being able to use basic indicators of integrity, namely honesty and candor. This forum is not an apporpriate host of your arguments. I agree with a previous poster when he said you make a mockery of this website.
Quote from: Onesimus on Mar 25, 2006, 04:07 AM
I didn't plead the the 5th. I am not guilty of anything. You are correct that this an integrity issue. I am proud of my decision not to be sexually harassed by the government a second time.
Not guilty of anything? How about a lack of good judgment. A 27 year-old man playing checkers online with a 13 year-old girl. Talk about a red flag!! There's more to this story than what you've let on. Thank God you were denied.
Quote from: quickfix on Mar 25, 2006, 12:38 PM
Not guilty of anything? How about a lack of good judgment. A 27 year-old man playing checkers online with a 13 year-old girl. Talk about a red flag!! There's more to this story than what you've let on. Thank God you were denied.
What are you folks on? Playing checkers online with a young girl is a red flag? Good lord, that says much more about you than it does about Onesimus. What we're seeing here is projection - you're projecting your fears and self-suspicions on someone else.
I don't play online checkers, but when I was younger (around 14), I played online chess frequently, as I had participated in and won several junior league chess competitions. I played guys and girls ranging in age from 13 - 70! Is every adult I played with suddenly a pedophile or pederast? How callous of you to assume so!
As for the legal jargon you're throwing around, it's clear none of you know what you're talking about. One does not "plead the fifth" in a bloody employment application.
The relevant language is no one "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" - I assure you no court has or will ever construe this to apply to an pre-employment context. In other words, leaving stuff out of your application, or simply refusing to discuss a matter may open you up to employment bars or some statutory penalty - but the Fifth Amendment has nothing to do with it.
Finally, Onesimus' case, I suspect, is much more complicated than we - possibly he - knows. All we have are a few alarming letters (one actually conceding (!) misconduct on the part of the examiner!) and the story. Attacking Onesimus like vultures is really unjustified and unhelpful. Do not be so quick to judge.
Quote from: quickfix on Mar 25, 2006, 12:38 PM
Not guilty of anything? How about a lack of good judgment. A 27 year-old man playing checkers online with a 13 year-old girl. Talk about a red flag!! There's more to this story than what you've let on. Thank God you were denied.
I've read through quite a bit on this website but this is a bit much.
God help anyone anyone who does community service work with at risk children, and then comes in for a polygraph. Fortunately the only volunteer work I've ever done was with the elderly. I guess I'm safe.
A bit much? Go ask that 13 year-old girl's father if HE thinks it's a bit much.
Quote from: quickfix on Mar 25, 2006, 09:18 PMA bit much? Go ask that 13 year-old girl's father if HE thinks it's a bit much.
Responding with pointless one-liners that appeal to emotion rather than logic (i.e., by addressing the points I made) seems typical of your posts.
The issue has NOTHING to do with playing online checkers with a 13 year old. NOTHING......Nada........zilch. My last post explained what the issue is. It's quite simple. Even a simple-mind can understand it. Get it? Probably not, because the last several posters seem stuick on talking about online checkers.....dont ask me why. As for Antrella: Antrella didn't make any 'points' at all....antrella attempted to divert the issue by making an implication that the applicant was refused a clearance because he played online checkers with a 13 year old. Sorry, Andrella, that's not why. He was denied because he flatly refused to discuss details of his life with security investigators. When you do this, you don't get a clearance. Period. The blame goes back to THAT behavior on the part of the applicant, because the applicant made the conscious decision to refuse to cooperate. Let's see if you can stay on point. And as a sidenote, I don't believe that playing online checkers with a 13 year old has any negative connotations. If that's all there is to that story. But when you refuse to discuss it, you leave the mind wondering. When you apply for a clearance, you consent to investigation of all aspects of your life....refusing to discuss details means you are not entitled to the priviledge of gaining access to classified national security information. So if you want to talk about logic, use logic and dont feed into drama. Oh and I never said he ACTUALLY plead the 5th. I said what he did ESSENTIALLY amounted to it. Again, see if you can stay on point. I know its difficult for you, but do try. You don't seem to understand how access to national security information works. It's not like filling out any old 'employment application' (in fact, this discussion is not about an employment application, it's about a top secret SCI clearance, so please try to follow along) It's agreement to a complete and detailed investigation of your life. You don't have to consent to it, but the government doesn't have to grant you access to the information. And when you sit there and tell investigators that "you're not going to discuss" certain aspects that they want to discuss, guess what antrella? You ain't gettin the clearance. Why? Lack of candor.....which is clearly spelled out in the policy. See, if you knew anything about the policy, you'd know this. But instead you come here and show your ignorance and try to give us lectures on the 5th amendment....which has nothinhg to do with this at all, other than when I used it as an ANALOGY. PS: You need a JD and a law license to teach law. Please stick to whatever it is you are trained to do, because no legal mind would ever make the stupid arguments you've made relative to this thread.
Quote from: antrella on Mar 25, 2006, 09:29 PM
Responding with pointless one-liners that appeal to emotion rather than logic (i.e., by addressing the points I made) seems typical of your posts.
And drivel seems typical of yours. Onesimus calls it playing checkers; LE calls it trolling for naive underage girls. That's why he refused to discuss it. How gullible you are.
Quote from: PentaFed on Mar 25, 2006, 10:12 PMThe issue has NOTHING to do with playing online checkers with a 13 year old. NOTHING......Nada........zilch. My last post explained what the issue is. It's quite simple. Even a simple-mind can understand it. Get it? Probably not, because the last several posters seem stuick on talking about online checkers.....dont ask me why. Antrella didn't make any 'points' at all....antrella attempted to divert the issue from lack of candor, to making an implication that the applicant was refused a clearance because he played online checkers with a 13 year old. Sorry, Andrella, that's not why. He was denied because he flatly refused to discuss details of his life with security investigators. When you do this, you don't get a clearance. Period. The blame goes back to THAT behavior on the part of the applicant, because the applicant made the concious decision to refuse to cooperate. Let's see if you can stay on point. And as a sidenote, I don't believe that playing online checkers with a 13 year old has any negative connotations. If that's all there is to that story. But when you refuse to discuss it, you leave the mind wondering. When you apply for a clearance, you consent to investigation of all aspects of your life....refusing to discuss details means are not entitled to the priviledge of gaining access to classified national security information. So if you want to talk about logic, use logic and dont feed into drama. Oh and I never said he ACTUALLY plead the 5th. I said what he did ESSENTIALLY amounted to it. Again, see if you can stay on point. I know its difficult for you, but do try. You don't seem to understand how access to national security information works. It's not like filling out any old 'employment application' (in fact, this discussion is not about an employment application, it's about a top secret SCI clearance, so please try to follow along) It's agreement to a complete and detailed investigation of your life. You don't have to consent to it, but the government doesn't have to grant you access to the information. And when you sit there and tell investigators that "you're not going to discuss" certain aspects that they want to discuss, guess what antrella? You ain't gettin the clearance. Why? Lack of candor.....which is clearly spelled out in the policy. See, if you knew anything about the policy, you'd know this. But instead you come here and show your ignorance and try to give us lectures on the 5th amendment....which has nothinhg to do with this at all, other than when I used it as an ANALOGY. PS: You need a JD and a law license to teach law. Please stick to whatever it is you are trained to do, because no legal mind would ever make the stupid arguments you've made relative to this thread.
Well, at least Antrella knows what a paragraph is. On a serious note, Pentafed or Quickfix can you offer a guess on how accurate you feel screening polygraphs are?
Quote from: Mr. Mystery on Mar 25, 2006, 10:47 PM
Well, at least Antrella knows what a paragraph is. On a serious note, Pentafed or Quickfix can you offer a geuss on how accurate you feel screening polygraphs are?
First of all, people who take cheap shots about grammar, typing, paragraph formatting etc. on an internet message board are rarely, if ever, worthy of debating. But here is my answer: You can review one of my recent posts on this thread to find the ONLY comments I've made here relative to polygraphing. My reference actually supported the author of this site in his efforts against polygraphing. The points I made were not limited to polygraphs. Refusing to be candid with questions posed during a security investigation, whether they are made while being polygraped or not, is behavior that will end your clearance AND is behvaior that may be indicatative of integrity issues. If you'd like to debate me on the actual points I've made, please refer to those points verbatim and stick to the issue. If you care to make anymore comments about my typing or formatting of my online text, just carry on with your miserable self and seek some counseling or soemthing, because I don't have the time to be the sounding board for your obvious frustrations with life. I type quickly and carefree on internet bulletin boards. If you can't handle that, maybe you shouldn't read posts unless they are edited for typo's and perfectly formatted to the desires of your anal-retentive personality. (But first, you better review your own posting for SPELLING ) If you don't know how the government security process works and are ignorant to the policies and procedures around them, like antrella, go school yourself and then come back to talk. You claim to be "serious" but all you do is take one quick cheap shot and then pose one quick rhetorical question. If you have an argument or point to make, make it! That's when you'll be taken seriously. 8)
Mea Culpa. It was difficult to follow your post in the manner you presented it. I do agree with you on the lack of cooperation issue regarding Onesimus.
In all sincerity I did read through your old posts before posting my statement. I had to read through it again before I found the references to supporting Mr. Maschke. It really wasn't clear to a casual observer.
Ever since Retcopper on another thread posted his thoughts on screening polygraphs, I've been curious on what supporters of polygraphs feel about its utility and accuracy. Since I now know how you feel about screening polygraphs this question really isn't directed to you.
There's a lot that I could comment on since my last post, but I'll just make this quick with a couple points of clarification.
on checkers -- I don't believe they are accusing me of not being candid on this issue. Again, it was said in the context of things that are not serious crimes, not crimes at all, but things that someone could possibly view in a bad light. There were 0 questions I didn't answer regarding my checkers game. I believe the only thing I was really asked was whether or not sex was involved. I truthfully denied that sex was involved, and the interrogator moved on.
on my work with the Junior High youth group at my previous Church -- You can read the apology letter for yourself -- the questions asked to me were not appropriate. Furthermore, one of the parents of the Junior High kids is on my SF86. Furthermore, my polygrapher claimed to have read the account I posted on this website of what happened to me back in 2003 with the previous agency. Furthermore, when I went above and beyond and mentioned some of the inappropriate questions that were asked to me, my polygrapher agreed with me that they were not appropriate.
The case for my lack of candor is almost non-existent. I wouldn't be surprised if the adjudicator went after me harder than the NSA polygraph division's technical director would have expected.
PentaFed,
You wrote to Onesimus, among other things, the following:
Quote from: PentaFed on Mar 25, 2006, 09:29 AM...This forum is not an apporpriate host of your arguments. I agree with a previous poster when he said you make a mockery of this website.
For the record I strongly disagree. I do not believe that Onesimus has made a mockery of this website, nor do I believe that his posting here has in any way been inappropriate.
You also seem to suggest that there is no such thing as an inappropriate question when it comes to background investigations, arguing that "When requesting a clearance of this level an applicant should be willing to discuss anything about himself." However, in an apology letter (http://antipolygraph.org/documents/onesimus-apology-letter.pdf) to Onesimus, Stephen J. MacKellar, the Clearance Division chief of a major intelligence agency, conceded in writing that Onesimus had in fact been asked inappropriate questions.
It appears to me that you may have made a snap judgment about Onesimus without being fully aware of what he has posted previously on this website. Having read all his posts (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?board=7.0) from the beginning (almost three years ago), it seems evident to me that the NSA's denial of his security clearance was retaliatory in nature (at least in part for his exercise of his First Amendment rights on this message board and candor regarding his skepticism about polygraphy) and not based on genuine national security concerns.
I read the apology letter. However, it doesn't go into any details at all regarding which inappropriate questions were asked. But I do stand firm in my opinion that the person sealed his own fate to a large degree when he simply refused to any questions about the time period in question. From reading that letter, one can only conclude that the reviewing authority didn't think the inappaoripriate questions were enough to invalidate the entire clearance process. I'm not commenting here on anything in the pplicants background, except to comment on his decision to not cooperate. If he had issues with what was being requested he should have complied and THEN made his complaints. He wasn't asked to jump off a bridge at high noon. He was asked to discuss certain aspects of his life. While I respect you and your efforts, I don't think you're expecting everyone to simply read this website and accept everything that people post here without being challenged at all, do you? In the unlikely event that you are, your desire is for nothing more than a propaganda board. We all have things in our background that we would "rather not discuss" and depending on the age of the person the more they may not want to discuss. That's reality. But in a security investigation of this level a person must be expected to answer just about anything. That's not to say that those answers should be held against an invidivual. Quite the contrary, it's the honesty and candor that are being sought in most cases. But when the candor is lacking, the baseline of a person's character is at issue.
Quote from: Onesimus on Mar 26, 2006, 12:10 AM
The case for my lack of candor is almost non-existent. I wouldn't be surprised if the adjudicator went after me harder than the NSA polygraph division's technical director would have expected.
Did you not say you didn't want to discuss things in your interview? Are you saying that the letter you posted is filled with lies? What did you tell them you wouldn't discuss? Are you here to dispute the validty of polygraphs (an issue worthy of dispute) or are you here to indict the integrity of the officials conducting the clearance prcoess? I'm trying to focus on the actual point you're trying to make, but it's difficult. The validity of polygraphs is questionable. But there are still people who shouldn't be qualified to access national security information. Based on what I've read, I'm not convinced you aren't one of those people. I'm not saying you are one of those people. However, your behavior during the security processing doesn't bolster your case. And that's the ONLY aspect of your tale that I'm questioning here. I'm basing my opinion on what i've read here and not on speculation about a conspiracy to deny a clearance based on a bias. (ie retaliation for exercising your First Amendment rights) I don't see enough evidence to reach that conclusion. I do see enough evidence to question the applicants judgement in refusing to discuss certain issues. (according to what the letter says) I mean, you weakend your case dramatically when you didn't follow-through with what was requested before being denied.
Onesimus,
I want to pose two questions to you, as a sidenote to this dicusswion:
1) Do you believe you used good judgement in engaging in any type of interactive internet activity with a 13 year old girl? Notice that I'm not saying or implying you did anything wrong or illegal. The question speaks only to your judgement. I want to reiterate that I don't believe this to be valid reason to deny a clearance, if that's all it was limited to. However, I don't believe, personally, that it's good judgment to do this, given what we know about the ways child predators operate today.
2) Do you think you used good judgement in telling investigators that you don't wish to discuss the issues they were inquiring about?
These questions are posed at face-value. There is no hidden implication in this questions except to ask you if you believe your 'judgement' may have been off in certain situations.
1) Yes. However, the question should probably have been worded, "Do you feel you exercised good judgment in not immediately abandoning your game upon finding out your opponent was 13 years old."
2) Yes.
There appear to be some semantic issues here. You suggest that it is not wrong to interact with a 13 year old girl, but it is an exercise of bad judgment. I am not sure what difference you are trying to highlight with these statements. For the purposes of the questions I pose below, "inappropriate" basically means something for which a government agency could, at least in part, deny someone's clearance based on.
Questions for you:
1) Is all interaction between someone >= 18 with someone < 18 inappropriate?
2) Is all interaction on the internet between someone >= 18 with someone < 18 inappropriate?
3) During a polygraph exam, if someone admits to interacting with someone <= 18, is it fair for the government to assume the interaction was inappropriate even when the examinee denies any wrongdoing?
4) Are you sure that no one <= 18 visits/posts on this website or any other website you have been to?
5) Do you believe there is a significant number of technically savvy recent college graduates who have never had any contact on the internet with anyone <= 18 after they turned 18?
6) How is our national security dependent on the government knowing the bra sizes of the Junior High students at my last Church?
7) How is our national security dependent on whether or not "I like shaved tail"?
8 ) How is our national security dependent upon an adjudicator trying to convince me that the youth group girls were sluts trying to have sex with older men?
Quote from: PentaFed on Mar 26, 2006, 08:33 AMI read the apology letter. However, it doesn't go into any details at all regarding which inappropriate questions were asked.
Nevertheless it appears the government does realize there are limits to how it can treat its citizens.
Quote
But I do stand firm in my opinion that the person sealed his own fate to a large degree when he simply refused to any questions about the time period in question.
I agree, but that doesn't mean what I did was wrong. Standing up for oneself is a good thing.
Quote
From reading that letter, one can only conclude that the reviewing authority didn't think the inappaoripriate questions were enough to invalidate the entire clearance process.
This letter was from an earlier agency, which did grant my clearance.
QuoteI'm not commenting here on anything in the pplicants background, except to comment on his decision to not cooperate. If he had issues with what was being requested he should have complied and THEN made his complaints. He wasn't asked to jump off a bridge at high noon. He was asked to discuss certain aspects of his life.
How many times do I need to repeat this -- The only questions I didn't answer were ones which the government agreed were not appropriate to ask.
Quote
While I respect you and your efforts, I don't think you're expecting everyone to simply read this website and accept everything that people post here without being challenged at all, do you? In the unlikely event that you are, your desire is for nothing more than a propaganda board.
Nope
Quote
We all have things in our background that we would "rather not discuss" and depending on the age of the person the more they may not want to discuss. That's reality. But in a security investigation of this level a person must be expected to answer just about anything.
Again, the posted apology letter shows that our government does not agree with you on this point.
Quote
That's not to say that those answers should be held against an invidivual. Quite the contrary, it's the honesty and candor that are being sought in most cases. But when the candor is lacking, the baseline of a person's character is at issue.
I am proud that I refused to discuss certain issues a second time, and wish I was strong enough to have not discussed them the first time.
Quote from: PentaFed on Mar 26, 2006, 08:42 AM
Are you here to dispute the validty of polygraphs (an issue worthy of dispute)
If by "valid" you mean "detects lies", there is little room for dispute. Even NSA polygraph division's technical director agrees it does not detect lies.
Quote
or are you here to indict the integrity of the officials conducting the clearance prcoess?
There are definitely serious issues with the integrity of many officialls conducting the clearance process.
Quote
I'm trying to focus on the actual point you're trying to make, but it's difficult.
I'm not trying to make just one point. Unfortunately, there are many problems with our intelligence agencies.
Quote
The validity of polygraphs is questionable. But there are still people who shouldn't be qualified to access national security information. Based on what I've read, I'm not convinced you aren't one of those people.
It's doubtfull anyone on this message board can definitively know whether or not I deserve a clearance, but, as the letter states, I've already received two of them.
Quote
I'm not saying you are one of those people. However, your behavior during the security processing doesn't bolster your case.
I just hope there are plenty of others who disagree with you and will join me in speaking out against government sponsored sexual harassment of applicants.
Quote
And that's the ONLY aspect of your tale that I'm questioning here. I'm basing my opinion on what i've read here and not on speculation about a conspiracy to deny a clearance based on a bias. (ie retaliation for exercising your First Amendment rights) I don't see enough evidence to reach that conclusion. I do see enough evidence to question the applicants judgement in refusing to discuss certain issues. (according to what the letter says) I mean, you weakend your case dramatically when you didn't follow-through with what was requested before being denied.
Quote from: quickfix on Mar 25, 2006, 10:32 PM
And drivel seems typical of yours. Onesimus calls it playing checkers; LE calls it trolling for naive underage girls. That's why he refused to discuss it. How gullible you are.
Quickfix,
This may come as a shock to you, but a significant portion of cleared technical workers are avid gamers. They brag about the computer they built for themselves and how many frames per second they get on game XXX. And then they talk about playing games online. You know who else likes to play games online? -- kids!! I guess, in your world view, a significant portion of cleared technical workers go home at night and troll for naive underage girls/boys.
Onesimus
The polygrapher asked you the bra sizes of early teen girls in your church??? What a pervert. That was certainly inappropriate and he should be held accountable in a court of law. He's a sicko. I would have told him to get his jollies elsewhere. I am suspect of any who upholds his tactics.
When I was kid in a small farm country community, the old timers played checkers and dominos in the back of the general store. They could see my interest in learning the games and quite often, after the game ended, would take time to teach me. They were heros in my book for taking an interest in me. And, yes, there were times when there was just me and an old gentleman in the back room together. (I finally reached the age when I could chew Brown Mule with them and not get sick). Anyone wanting to read anything but checkers and doninos into this are IDIOTS.
I am sure the girl appreciates you taking time to play checkers with her. Neither one of you read anything into it but a game of checkers.
Sick minds should dwell other places.
Quote from: Onesimus on Mar 26, 2006, 05:59 PM
There appear to be some semantic issues here. You suggest that it is not wrong to interact with a 13 year old girl, but it is an exercise of bad judgment. I am not sure what difference you are trying to highlight with these statements. For the purposes of the questions I pose below, "inappropriate" basically means something for which a government agency could, at least in part, deny someone's clearance based on.
Well, here's the deal. Judgement is about making the best choices in given circumstances. You can do things that are legal and not technically 'wrong', and still use bad judgement. Do you understand that concept? Or is your opinion that if it's legal then it must be okay to do? There are lots and lots of things that are legal, but doing them may not be using good judgement given the conditions and circumstances. Would you agree, or not?
Quote from: Onesimus on Mar 26, 2006, 05:59 PM
Questions for you:
1) Is all interaction between someone >= 18 with someone < 18 inappropriate?
2) Is all interaction on the internet between someone >= 18 with someone < 18 inappropriate?
3) During a polygraph exam, if someone admits to interacting with someone <= 18, is it fair for the government to assume the interaction was inappropriate even when the examinee denies any wrongdoing?
4) Are you sure that no one <= 18 visits/posts on this website or any other website you have been to?
5) Do you believe there is a significant number of technically savvy recent college graduates who have never had any contact on the internet with anyone <= 18 after they turned 18?
6) How is our national security dependent on the government knowing the bra sizes of the Junior High students at my last Church?
7) How is our national security dependent on whether or not "I like shaved tail"?
8 ) How is our national security dependent upon an adjudicator trying to convince me that the youth group girls were sluts trying to have sex with older men?
1) No, I never implied that. However, I will say this: Fact: internet child predators are at epidemic levels. The internet is basically the primary means by which child predators are going after children. Fact: playing games and other things that interest children are one of the primary means by which these same predators get their foot in the door to eventually meet these children. Fact: During my 16 years of wqorking within the criminal justice system, I've spoken with dozens of accused and convicted molesters. During those conversations I can't recall one who didn't defend whatever behavior he used to gain the trust of his victim. It's ALWAYS oh-so-innocent and they ALWAYS have more than one activity in their background in which they have dealt with other people's children. Given this, I don't think it's unreasonable for background investigators to want to delve into the issue just a wee bit to see if there is anything there. I also don't understand why anyone who is completely agenda-free would not want to cooperate. Just my opinion. I will also add that given all of the above, I believe it is bad judgement (there's that awful J word again) to be engaging in those types of activities online with 13 year old girls, given the thousands of adults who would love to play checkers with you online.
2) See above
3)No, lacking any other facts. But I don't know if this assumption was made.
4) No I'm not, But I'm not interacting with any of them in a dynamic way. It's a bulletin board that is open to the public. No instant messages used here.
5) What's that got to do with this conversation?
6) Have no idea, wasn't there. Whomever posed the question should be terminated. Not related to the issue I addressed.
7) see above
8)see above.
Almost without a doubt, if asked such straight-up lewd and ridiculous questions by my polygrapher I would have ripped the cables/doodads off my body and/or clocked him.
Good judgment is knowing when to stand up for yourself - on that front, I applaud Onesumus. His only fault was not humoring all the govt's Qs - which I would have done without hesitation - assuming punching out the polygrapher didn't discontinue the application process :).
I said it before, and I'll say it again: stop projecting your insecurities and self-suspicions onto someone else. Normal, well-balanced folks don't think twice when interacting with younger people, teens and so on. My instinct if/when I come upon a 13-year-old in any setting is not "It would be wise of me to avert my gaze and keep my distance, lest I lead others to suspect I am a pedophile." Good lord. Who thinks that way?
Quote from: antrella on Mar 27, 2006, 01:39 PMAlmost without a doubt, if asked such straight-up lewd and ridiculous questions by my polygrapher I would have ripped the cables/doodads off my body and/or clocked him.
Good judgment is knowing when to stand up for yourself - on that front, I applaud Onesumus. His only fault was not humoring all the govt's Qs - which I would have done without hesitation - assuming punching out the polygrapher didn't discontinue the application process :).
I said it before, and I'll say it again: stop projecting your insecurities and self-suspicions onto someone else. Normal, well-balanced folks don't think twice when interacting with younger people, teens and so on. My instinct if/when I come upon a 13-year-old in any setting is not "It would be wise of me to avert my gaze and keep my distance, lest I lead others to suspect I am a pedophile." Good lord. Who thinks that way?
What a shame you can't speak to any of the points raised on the site, and continue to talk about things that were never even discussed. Nobody said anything about the drivel you posted above (ie averting gazes etc). That's just pure hyperbole to mask your ignorance around the issue. Of course, anyone who gets so upset at any 'question' posed to him that he would actually assult the questioner, is someone who doesn't deserve any kind of position of trust. So you've proven to be irrelvant here anyway. You just keep sputtering about what's convenient for you to sputter about, and ignore the salient points, demonstrating you to be nothing more than a propaganda machine that neither knows nor cares about security. Next.
Quote from: PentaFed on Mar 27, 2006, 02:29 PM
What a shame you can't speak to any of the points raised on the site, and continue to talk about things that were never even discussed. Nobody said anything about the drivel you posted above (ie averting gazes etc). That's just pure hyperbole to mask your ignorance around the issue. Of course, anyone who gets so upset at any 'question' posed to him that he would actually assult the questioner, is someone who doesn't deserve any kind of position of trust. So you've proven to be irrelvant here anyway. Next.
Pity this response isn't longer, as I was looking forward to another 100-line mega-paragraph rife with such gems as "You need a JD and a law license to teach law" and "stick to whatever it is you are trained to do." They say brevity is the soul of wit - you are case in point for the inverse.
My points in the first instance were that some of the folks here were overly fixated on the substance of the issue, which you correctly point out isn't the most important factor in Onesimus's story. I agree (and said) what it comes down to is a matter of apparent honesty/candor.
My aside on the law - which is wholly valid - was precisely that, an aside to address your laughable remark that Onesimus "did, essentially, plead the fifth because you were not CANDID and UPFRONT with the information requested." That is not the Fifth Amendment. I won't launch into a personal attack here, but let's just say this struck me as patently absurd.
Note that I did say, and still believe that the case is "much more complicated than we - possibly he - knows." Security clearances - which I ***assure you*** I know a great deal about - are complicated matters. The "whole person" idea is about considering everything and reaching a fair disposition. That's why certain bars can be overridden in time (some people are told to apply in 5 years, 10, etc).
"Pure hyperbole to mask your ignorance around the issue." Not even sure that makes sense, but I see what you're driving at. Again, it isn't the issue - but you and your ilk keep coming back to it and making it the issue, using different covers. Poor judgment, lack of candor, etc.
As for "positions of trust" and popping someone who calls young girls at my place of worship sluts or anything to that effect, please don't be daft. The most important suitability criteria for "positions of trust" is - you guessed it, trustworthiness. Can this person be turned? Does he have a character flaw that can be exploited (drugs, sexual deviancy, etc). Not, "does he have a temper."
I'm purposefully vague about who I am and what I do, and I intend to keep it that way. But I will say this: many of the best folks I know (who are also ***not*** strangers to "positions of trust") would have reacted the same way. It's almost a virtue in some way - after all, they're not diplomats - but executors of the law and protectors of the state.
Quote from: antrella on Mar 27, 2006, 02:57 PM
Pity this response isn't longer, as I was looking forward to another 100-line mega-paragraph rife with such gems as "You need a JD and a law license to teach law" and "stick to whatever it is you are trained to do." They say brevity is the soul of wit - you are case in point for the inverse.
My points in the first instance were that some of the folks here were overly fixated on the substance of the issue, which you correctly point out isn't the most important factor in Onesimus's story. I agree (and said) what it comes down to is a matter of apparent honesty/candor.
My aside on the law - which is wholly valid - was precisely that, an aside to address your laughable remark that Onesimus "did, essentially, plead the fifth because you were not CANDID and UPFRONT with the information requested." That is not the Fifth Amendment. I won't launch into a personal attack here, but let's just say this struck me as patently absurd.
Note that I did say, and still believe that the case is "much more complicated than we - possibly he - knows." Security clearances - which I ***assure you*** I know a great deal about - are complicated matters. The "whole person" idea is about considering everything and reaching a fair disposition. That's why certain bars can be overridden in time (some people are told to apply in 5 years, 10, etc).
"Pure hyperbole to mask your ignorance around the issue." Not even sure that makes sense, but I see what you're driving at. Again, it isn't the issue - but you and your ilk keep coming back to it and making it the issue, using different covers. Poor judgment, lack of candor, etc.
As for "positions of trust" and popping someone who calls young girls at my place of worship sluts or anything to that effect, please don't be daft. The most important suitability criteria for "positions of trust" is - you guessed it, trustworthiness. Can this person be turned? Does he have a character flaw that can be exploited (drugs, sexual deviancy, etc). Not, "does he have a temper."
I'm purposefully vague about who I am and what I do, and I intend to keep it that way. But I will say this: many of the best folks I know (who are also ***not*** strangers to "positions of trust") would have reacted the same way. It's almost a virtue in some way - after all, they're not diplomats - but executors of the law and protectors of the state.
I'm sorry my friend. Anyone who doesn't demostrate enough self-discipline to keep his hands to himself, despite what is SAID to him, can't be trusted. Similarly, those who can't be candid, can't be trusted. Since you appear fixated on my reference to the fifth amendment, here's the relationship: When a witness or defendant appears before a Grand Jury, or ins some cases a Congressional Committee, he sometimes invokes his right not to testify to certain questions posed because they may tend to incriminate him. The subject in question decided he wasn't going to answer those questions. Whether his answering the question or not would have tended to incriminate him, I don't know. But I do know he's made reference to his not answering those questions upon advice of counsel. I'm not sure what is the purpose of not being candid and simply answering the questions, but surely even a bombastic boob such as yourself can see the analaogy. Be vague all you want. It just proves you are either a) lacking in knowledge or b) totally F'ing paranoid. Either way, you do have difficulty sticking to the facts instead choosing to respond with great diatribes filled with melodrama.
QuoteI'm sorry my friend. Anyone who doesn't demostrate enough self-discipline to keep his hands to himself, despite what is SAID to him, can't be trusted. Similarly, those who can't be candid, can't be trusted. Since you appear fixated on my reference to the fifth amendment, here's the relationship: When a witness or defendant appears before a Grand Jury, or ins some cases a Congressional Committee, he sometimes invokes his right not to testify to certain questions posed because they may tend to incriminate him. The subject in question decided he wasn't going to answer those questions. Whether his answering the question or not would have tended to incriminate him, I don't know. But I do know he's made reference to his not answering those questions upon advice of counsel. I'm not sure what is the purpose of not being candid and simply answering the questions, but surely even a bombastic boob such as yourself can see the analaogy. Be vague all you want. It just proves you are either a) lacking in knowledge or b) totally F'ing paranoid. Either way, you do have difficulty sticking to the facts instead choosing to respond with great diatribes filled with melodrama.
"A bombastic boob such as yourself can see the analaogy."
Boy, you sure can turn a phrase - have you considered a career in literature?
Though this isn't about me or you (it's about Onesimus and his current predicament- I suggest we get back on topic), I will humor you this one last time.
I'm not at all fixated on the 5th Am. issue. I brought it up once, you continued mentioning it in all subsequent posts addressed to me. That said, I understand your layman's rationale vis-a-vis the Fifth Amendment - it's just wrong. You can compare what he did to invoking the Fifth, but to describe not disclosing everything in detail as "essentially" invoking the 5th is absurd. You finally coming around and calling it an "analaogy [sic]" shows there's hope yet for you, grasshopper.
I'm not trying to teach constitutional law here - just explain that many people erroneously say "HE PLEADED THE FIFTH" or whatever in completely incorrect contexts. Lots of people also think anyone arrested needs to have his/her rights read to them - this is also untrue.
As for punching a polygrapher, perhaps I was a bit rash. I can be hot-tempered at times, but fortunately for all parties involved, the polygraphers I've interacted with have been relatively upstanding folks.
As for melodrama, I apologize if my writing style is too much for you. I will hereafter infuse it with ad hominem attacks, grammatical and spelling errors, and strip it of any unique style. Excessively long paragraphs for everyone!
Quote from: antrella on Mar 27, 2006, 03:28 PM
"A bombastic boob such as yourself can see the analaogy."
Boy, you sure can turn a phrase - have you considered a career in literature?
Though this isn't about me or you (it's about Onesimus and his current predicament- I suggest we get back on topic), I will humor you this one last time.
I'm not at all fixated on the 5th Am. issue. I brought it up once, you continued mentioning it in all subsequent posts addressed to me. That said, I understand your layman's rationale vis-a-vis the Fifth Amendment - it's just wrong. You can compare what he did to invoking the Fifth, but to describe not disclosing everything in detail as "essentially" invoking the 5th is absurd. You finally coming around and calling it an "analaogy [sic]" shows there's hope yet for you, grasshopper.
I'm not trying to teach constitutional law here - just explain that many people erroneously say "HE PLEADED THE FIFTH" or whatever in completely incorrect contexts. Lots of people also think anyone arrested needs to have his/her rights read to them - this is also untrue.
As for punching a polygrapher, perhaps I was a bit rash. I can be hot-tempered at times, but fortunately for all parties involved, the polygraphers I've interacted with have been relatively upstanding folks.
As for melodrama, I apologize if my writing style is too much for you. I will hereafter infuse it with ad hominem attacks, grammatical and spelling errors, and strip it of any unique style. Excessively long paragraphs for everyone!
I think you should put your high-speed reading skills to work and read my very first response to the 'drive-by' post you authored earlier. I clearly called it an analogy back then, too. Reading for comprehension seems to be your biggest problem here.
Pentafed,
How does refusing to answer the questions that Onesismus refused to answer qualify as lack of candor or serve as a mark for him not being trustworthy? On the contrary, his refusal is a mark of character to not engage the polygrapher in his grotesque machinations designed to elicit some admissions of a horrendous crime so he can put another star in his confession box.
There must be some limits vis a vis attempts to extract information from applicants WHO OTHERWISE are morally sound human beings. Asking a man to forward guesses on the things that Onesismus was asked is patently absurd--but also sick. If he were being asked, did you ever snort cocaine or did you ever steal something, etc and he refused to answer then his candor and trustworthiness might be called into question.
So please answer my question without rambling off into digressions about the essences of candor and trustworthiness and the fifth amendment. It's simple really:
"How does refusing to answer the questions that Onesismus refused to answer qualify as lack of candor or serve as a mark for him not being trustworthy?"
Quote from: Wallerstein on Mar 27, 2006, 04:50 PMPentafed,
How does refusing to answer the questions that Onesismus refused to answer qualify as lack of candor or serve as a mark for him not being trustworthy? On the contrary, his refusal is a mark of character to not engage the polygrapher in his grotesque machinations designed to elicit some admissions of a horrendous crime so he can put another star in his confession box.
There must be some limits vis a vis attempts to extract information from applicants WHO OTHERWISE are morally sound human beings. Asking a man to forward guesses on the things that Onesismus was asked is patently absurd--but also sick. If he were being asked, did you ever snort cocaine or did you ever steal something, etc and he refused to answer then his candor and trustworthiness might be called into question.
So please answer my question without rambling off into digressions about the essences of candor and trustworthiness and the fifth amendment. It's simple really:
"How does refusing to answer the questions that Onesismus refused to answer qualify as lack of candor or serve as a mark for him not being trustworthy?"
I've already spoken to the issue. Read above.
Quote from: PentaFed on Mar 27, 2006, 05:04 PM
I've already spoken to the issue. Read above.
Well, I've read "the above." Basically what I can find is that you say that Onesismus "refused to answer details about his personal life."
How does Onesismus' refusal to posit guesses concerning girls that he works with constitute "refusing to answer details about his personal life?"
Answer please.
Quote from: PentaFed on Mar 27, 2006, 05:04 PM
I've already spoken to the issue. Read above.
PentaFed,
I have waited a while to come on this thread as I wanted to see where you were taking this. Now I agree that trying to analyze and tie together the 5th amendment to taking a polygraph is quite the stretch. As we both know that to mirandize someone allows them to just be quiet and not say a word unless with a lawyer present.
But as far as a postion of trust, and candor, your going to tell me that this polygraphers proven violations of the rules of conduct with Onesimus should be overlooked. The thread and its progress shows clearly that the polygrapher broke the rules of conduct and conducted questioning way beyond what was neccessary. Unless it is your contention that all is fair when doing employment interrogations. But let us not forget that in your mind and other polygraphers minds at the federal level its your job to filterout undesireables because you have decided to be judge, jury and executioner. And none of you seem compelled to follow the mandates of your own association (APA). Its the right of the examinee to end any polygraph session at their discretion, you just have to live with the consequences, of not getting the job. That also means that highly provocative questions can be ignored too. And besides physically assaulting a polygrapher would be a rather dumb move. But using countermeasures and beating you at your own game is the better one. To the victor of mind games goes the spoils !!
Regards ....
Quote from: EosJupiter on Mar 27, 2006, 07:52 PM
PentaFed,
I have waited a while to come on this thread as I wanted to see where you were taking this. Now I agree that trying to analyze and tie together the 5th amendment to taking a polygraph is quite the stretch. As we both know that to mirandize someone allows them to just be quiet and not say a word unless with a lawyer present.
But as far as a postion of trust, and candor, your going to tell me that this polygraphers proven violations of the rules of conduct with Onesimus should be overlooked. The thread and its progress shows clearly that the polygrapher broke the rules of conduct and conducted questioning way beyond what was neccessary. Unless it is your contention that all is fair when doing employment interrogations. But let us not forget that in your mind and other polygraphers minds at the federal level its your job to filterout undesireables because you have decided to be judge, jury and executioner. And none of you seem compelled to follow the mandates of your own association (APA). Its the right of the examinee to end any polygraph session at their discretion, you just have to live with the consequences, of not getting the job. That also means that highly provocative questions can be ignored too. And besides physically assaulting a polygrapher would be a rather dumb move. But using countermeasures and beating you at your own game is the better one. To the victor of mind games goes the spoils !!
Regards ....
You've just written a speech that is not reflective of what I've written. The only issue I've commented on here is the applicant's bad decision to take his ball and go home when he didn't feel like answering some questions. There are proper and improper ways of doing things. He didd't do it the proper way, in my opinion. You're right, he has to live with the consequences of his choice. And that has been my position all along. Nowhere have I said or implied anything differently. Nowhere have I implied he didn't have a right to stop the process. But don't bellyache about not getting the clearance if you chose to withdraw from the process. What should happen here is 1) the polygrapher who asked the inappropriate questions should be disciplined, up to and including termination, depending on how egregious his conduct was (I only know what the applicant claims because the letter didn't detail the conduct) and 2) the applicant doesn't get his clearance because he withdrew from the process in a less than professional way during the last clearance investigation. As a sidenote, please don't purport to know what is in my mind bwecause I'm not a "polygrapher at the Federal level." I'm not a polygrapher nor do I support polygraphy as a means to an end. However, at this stage of the game certain agencies have decided to use them as a supplement to other background data gathering processess. As such, applicants requesting these types of jobs and clearances have a process to go through. If you don't go through the process, you don't get the job. No series of questions are so offensive that they cannot be answered first, and then disputed and complained about after. That is the proper way of doing things. If a Police agent approaches you with a warrant for your arrest, signed by a Judge and based upon probable cause, and you, knowing you're innocent, decide to resist that arrest and assault the agent, what do you think is going to happen to you? What will happen is this: you'll be arrested for the original charge, and then charged with resisting arrest and assault on a law enf officer. In the end, you might be aquitted of the original charge but you'll probably pick up a conviction for assault on the officer. Why? Because you made the wrong decision and decided to do things your way, instead of the proper way. Oh, and as for your "countermeasures" they are a form of DISHONESTY, in my opinon, and any use of them would indicate that you're a DISHONEST person, whether you beat the machine or not. I'd rather walk away knowing I did things on the up and up, and by telling the truth (even if I don't get the job) than to use a form of DISHONESTY in the process. But that's a difference between your character and mine.
There seem to be a few misconceptions out there still. I think most can be cleared up by CAREFULLY reading the two documents attached to this thread as well as my very first thread (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=1073.msg8026#msg8026) on this site back in 2003. Note that the apology letter is in reference to what happened in 2003, not recently.
Link to first thread (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=1073.msg8026#msg8026)
Quote from: antrella on Mar 27, 2006, 03:28 PM
As for melodrama, I apologize if my writing style is too much for you. I will hereafter infuse it with ad hominem attacks, grammatical and spelling errors, and strip it of any unique style. Excessively long paragraphs for everyone!
I find it odd that Antrella speaks about ad hominem attacks when his first repsone to me was filled with them. But of course, s/he's so damned confident of what s/he posts that s/he finds the need to remove all past posts. Could it be so we can't continue to refer back to what s/he previously asserted, after s/he is dispatched as being a total self-contradicting hypocritcal lunatic every time s/he makes another appearance? One recent example is his claim that he would have stood up and popped the questioner if he posed those simply dreadful questions to him. But when confronted with the reality that a person who gets so upset so as to strike someone because of what he said is not being a good example of someone who is "trustworthy", he then backpeddled.
Quote from: Onesimus on Mar 27, 2006, 09:11 PMThere seem to be a few misconceptions out there still. I think most can be cleared up by CAREFULLY reading the two documents attached to this thread as well as my very first thread (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=1073.msg8026#msg8026) on this site back in 2003. Note that the apology letter is in reference to what happened in 2003, not recently.
Link to first thread (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=1073.msg8026#msg8026)
This is also what I was assuming in the beginning. I'd also like to clarify another issue. Did you refuse to answer the investigators questioning this last time while under polygraph examination or while just being interviewed? And if under polygraph, are you claiming that he also asked inappropriate questions?
Quote from: PentaFed on Mar 27, 2006, 08:32 PM
Oh, and as for your "countermeasures" they are a form of DISHONESTY, in my opinon, and any use of them would indicate that you're a DISHONEST person, whether you beat the machine or not. I'd rather walk away knowing I did things on the up and up, and by telling the truth (even if I don't get the job) than to use a form of DISHONESTY in the process. But that's a difference between your character and mine.
PentaFed,
Must be a nice place to live in a such a perfect world. This website wouldn't even exist, it hadn't been for the gorilla tactics of polygraphers on innocent folks. Go through the gut wrenching ordeal of getting a false positive and know that you were 100% honest, yet still failed.
You come on this website in less than 20 posts and proclaim how high and righteous you are and never once produce anything other than criticism and distain for the ordeal that started this thread.
As far as being DISHONEST, countermeasures in defense of ones self and veracity is never DISHONEST. Thats like saying everyone who owns a radar dectector must me an habitual speeder. They are mechanisms of self defense against an oppressive and worthless process that will be shown for useless as time progresses. And lets not forget something, researching polygraphy, disbelief in polygraphy, and knowing countermeasures is not illegal, nor is it corrupt, or DISHONEST. Another fallacy you are trying to push. Oh thats right I forgot, you work for the government and your here to help. Open your eyes and look beyond your bureacratic dogma, unless your so institutionalized that you can't see the need for dissent and open debate. When I hung my uniform up, it was the last day I ever said without thought, YES SIR. Get a clue, people don't like being screwed with, and will resort to mitigating anything that is oppressive and wrong. Bottom line is Onesimus did nothing wrong ... contrary to your beliefs. His honesty and candor just by being here proves what ever adjudication authority was neither. I would trust him further than a whole lot of civilians I had the misfortune of working with, most being there only to collect a paycheck and not much more. And don't you have something else to be doing other than wasting my tax dollars on bulletin board posts ? Now lets talk DISHONEST.
Quote from: EosJupiter on Mar 28, 2006, 01:51 AM
PentaFed,
Must be a nice place to live in a such a perfect world. This website wouldn't even exist, it hadn't been for the gorilla tactics of polygraphers on innocent folks. Go through the gut wrenching ordeal of getting a false positive and know that you were 100% honest, yet still failed.
You come on this website in less than 20 posts and proclaim how high and righteous you are and never once produce anything other than criticism and distain for the ordeal that started this thread.
As far as being DISHONEST, countermeasures in defense of ones self and veracity is never DISHONEST. Thats like saying everyone who owns a radar dectector must me an habitual speeder. They are mechanisms of self defense against an oppressive and worthless process that will be shown for useless as time progresses. And lets not forget something, researching polygraphy, disbelief in polygraphy, and knowing countermeasures is not illegal, nor is it corrupt, or DISHONEST. Another fallacy you are trying to push. Oh thats right I forgot, you work for the government and your here to help. Open your eyes and look beyond your bureacratic dogma, unless your so institutionalized that you can't see the need for dissent and open debate. When I hung my uniform up, it was the last day I ever said without thought, YES SIR. Get a clue, people don't like being screwed with, and will resort to mitigating anything that is oppressive and wrong. Bottom line is Onesimus did nothing wrong ... contrary to your beliefs. His honesty and candor just by being here proves what ever adjudication authority was neither. I would trust him further than a whole lot of civilians I had the misfortune of working with, most being there only to collect a paycheck and not much more. And don't you have something else to be doing other than wasting my tax dollars on bulletin board posts ? Now lets talk DISHONEST.
Boy, you sure do invent a lot of crap when trying to make a point don't ya? You know nothing about me, sir, yet you continue to imply you know what I do, who I work for, and how "high and mighty' I think I am. And if you believe that taking positive steps to interfere in a government investigation is akin to using a radar detector which detects speed traps (a civil infraction I might add) than you surely have no baseline that you refer to when you're deciding what is right and what is wrong in terms of YOUR behavior. From what you've written you sound like a paranoid who thinks the government is "out to get him." I wouldn't trust you with my morning newspaper. In your eyes if someone is a polygrapher or works for the government, they have an evil agenda to attack you and all who take polygraphs. The fact is that hundreds of people pass polygraphs every year and, while I don't support their use, the horror and injustices you purport to take place aren't as widespread as you would like us all to believe. Yes, they happen. Yes, I don't believe polygraphy is a good means to an end. But, we've already seen examples of the kind of wayward thinking that you display, so you're certainly in no position to discuss ethics. It would appear that you believe morals and ethics are relative to your convenience, and if one party is unethical than you now have the right to also be unethical. It doesn't work that way, Sir. At least not in my world. And I ASSURE you, my world is FAR from perfect. If your goal is to educate and informa the public about the weak reliability of polygraphs, fine. If your goal is to lobby the government to end their use, fine. When you get to the point where you're encouraging people involved in an employment or clearance process to take active, dishonest, steps to try and beat the thing, you've crossed the line. I'm curious, how do you feel about peopole who actually do have integrity issues beating the polygraph? Do you just support honest people beating the system or are you in favor of having shitbags get access to our national secrets? The way you make your aqrguments leads me to believe you support the latter. Do clarify.
EOS:
Come on lighten up. We all know that deep down you want to be a polygraph examiner.
PentaFed,
You write in part:
Quote
...If your goal is to educate and informa the public about the weak reliability of polygraphs....
Actually "weakness" does not begin to describe the phenomenon. The circumstances are absolutely dire and dangerous when a national security employee (consumer) believes and acts upon false negative information furnished by the polygrapher (provider) and thereby allows serious national security violations (espionage, etc) to go on unabated. Regards...
Quote from: Drew Richardson on Mar 28, 2006, 11:26 AMPentaFed,
You write in part:
Actually "weakness" does not begin to describe the phenomenon. The circumstances are absolutely dire and dangerous when a national security employee (consumer) believes and acts upon false negative information furnished by the polygrapher (provider) and thereby allows serious national security violations (espionage, etc) to go on unabated. Regards...
Ok. That's your opinion. I accept that. However, I don't accept those who would do dishonest acts to try and "beat" any established system. You don't make credible arguments for your side when you stoop to the level of the type of behavior you purport to be against. In other words, a person with weak integrity making a case against the weak integrity of certain polygraphers, doesn't convince me of anything except that he's a shitbag just like the polygrapher. I understand that there are some people on this forum who are going to come out in full-force to attack ANYBODY who is critical or skeptical of a person with tales of woe around polygraphs. But let's get this straight, not everyone who comes here with a sob story about not getting a clearance is a trustworthy person. I get a little sickened by some on this forum who will attempt to defend anyone who doesn't pass a polygraph, simply because they want to support their agenda. Promoting "beating" the system is not, in my opinion, a valid and honest way of lobbying against the use of poly. I also don't believe that a person who begins a process, then backs out when the questions get too tough for him, has standing when it comes to arguing for or against polygraphs. That same man actually passed two previous clearances w/poly's. It's only when he refused to answer the questions that he failed the process. The position I've consistently held here is that I do NOT support polygraphs. But some of the people here who share that view are not good examples for making a case against them.
Quote from: Wallerstein on Mar 27, 2006, 07:47 PM
Well, I've read "the above." Basically what I can find is that you say that Onesismus "refused to answer details about his personal life."
How does Onesismus' refusal to posit guesses concerning girls that he works with constitute "refusing to answer details about his personal life?"
Answer please.
....still waiting. I see that your reasoning in answering my repeated question (in response to another poster) has morphed into
"No series of questions are so offensive that they cannot be answered first, and then disputed and complained about after. That is the proper way of doing things."
I think, however, that there is a clear DISTINCTION between engaging a polygrapher in his musings about underage children when these questions can be deflected with a "yes/no" answer. If the questions posed to Onesismus were posed in such a matter, even though they would still be absurd, then perhaps one could see your reasoning. However, Onesismus was not asked "yes/no" questions. He was invited to offer guesses on these underage children.
So, I repeat my question: How does Onesismus' refusal to posit guesses concerning girls that he works with constitute "refusing to answer details about his personal life?"
Quote from: Wallerstein on Mar 28, 2006, 11:58 AM
....still waiting. I see that your reasoning in answering my repeated question (in response to another poster) has morphed into
"No series of questions are so offensive that they cannot be answered first, and then disputed and complained about after. That is the proper way of doing things."
I think, however, that there is a clear DISTINCTION between engaging a polygrapher in his musings about underage children when these questions can be deflected with a "yes/no" answer. If the questions posed to Onesismus were posed in such a matter, even though they would still be absurd, then perhaps one could see your reasoning. However, Onesismus was not asked "yes/no" questions. He was invited to offer guesses on these underage children.
So, I repeat my question: How does Onesismus' refusal to posit guesses concerning girls that he works with constitute "refusing to answer details about his personal life?"
Which official document do I reference that will tell me exactly which questions Onesismus refused to discuss? (and how they were posed) ALSO, if I'm not mistaken, those questions were posed during a previous clearance process and not the latest one.
Quote from: PentaFed on Mar 28, 2006, 12:10 PM
Which official document do I reference that will tell me exactly which questions Onesismus refused to discuss? (and how they were posed) ALSO, if I'm not mistaken, those questions were posed during a previous clearance process and not the latest one.
Given that you've chosen to write ad nauseum on this subject I think I could be forgiven for assuming that you've actually read Onesisums' original post. In it he describes in detail what questions he was asked. Granted this is not "an official document" but if this is your newest reasoning, i.e., there are no official documents and Onesismus has a good imagination, then let's not be coy...come out and say it.
So please go back and reference Onesismus' original post and you will find the questions. He's even taken the time to link to his original post above.
Drew:
The results would be more direr and dangerous if we didnt use the polygraph. The polygraph used in conjunction with other investigative measures is an asset that we cant afford to be without.
Retcopper,
There are several very good examples of where polygraph results have negatively impacted investigative theory (inappropriately narrowed the focus) and where investigative theory has apparently affected polygraph examination outcomes (the latter (subsequent polygraph results) having flip flopped in concert with changes in investigative theory). This unfortunate relationship and phenomenon have absolutely nothing to do with ground truth regardless of which is the effector and the effected, nor do the two components of this relationship have any connection to what would be known as a paired screening test and confirmatory test in the world of science. Because of this relationship, the national security community is foolish if they believe shortcomings in the polygraph process are necessarily corrected by further and complementary investigation. Clearly a spy/employee who passes a routine re-investigation polygraph exam will not be further investigated (and is even paradoxically less suspect than the innocent employee who has just not yet come up in the cue for his exam) and to some extent is given a free pass until his/her next re-investigation and polygraph examination. Clearly the damage that can be done in the intervening five years (or whatever the cycle length is for periodic examinations) before the next cycle begins is hard to fathom and most certainly poses a great danger to this nation. I am glad to report that various private communications are leading me to believe that some in the national security community are beginning to understand the aforementioned relationships.
Drew:
Let's suppose for instance that an employee takes a periodic exam and fails whether he is receiving money from a foreign government for whatever. A surveillance is put on the emoplyee and he is observed violating the law that he was asked about and flunked on the polygraph. This should be done and I imagine it is done. Because you find shortcomings in the polygraph is not a remason for us to bury our heads in the sand when it coes to national security. We use what we have and try to make the best of it.
Quote from: PentaFed on Mar 28, 2006, 10:37 AM
Boy, you sure do invent a lot of crap when trying to make a point don't ya? You know nothing about me, sir, yet you continue to imply you know what I do, who I work for, and how "high and mighty' I think I am. And if you believe that taking positive steps to interfere in a government investigation is akin to using a radar detector which detects speed traps (a civil infraction I might add) than you surely have no baseline that you refer to when you're deciding what is right and what is wrong in terms of YOUR behavior. From what you've written you sound like a paranoid who thinks the government is "out to get him." I wouldn't trust you with my morning newspaper. In your eyes if someone is a polygrapher or works for the government, they have an evil agenda to attack you and all who take polygraphs. The fact is that hundreds of people pass polygraphs every year and, while I don't support their use, the horror and injustices you purport to take place aren't as widespread as you would like us all to believe. Yes, they happen. Yes, I don't believe polygraphy is a good means to an end. But, we've already seen examples of the kind of wayward thinking that you display, so you're certainly in no position to discuss ethics. It would appear that you believe morals and ethics are relative to your convenience, and if one party is unethical than you now have the right to also be unethical. It doesn't work that way, Sir. At least not in my world. And I ASSURE you, my world is FAR from perfect. If your goal is to educate and informa the public about the weak reliability of polygraphs, fine. If your goal is to lobby the government to end their use, fine. When you get to the point where you're encouraging people involved in an employment or clearance process to take active, dishonest, steps to try and beat the thing, you've crossed the line. I'm curious, how do you feel about peopole who actually do have integrity issues beating the polygraph? Do you just support honest people beating the system or are you in favor of having shitbags get access to our national secrets? The way you make your aqrguments leads me to believe you support the latter. Do clarify.
PentaFed,
I have throughout any posting on this medium have never once advocated dishonesty. This website exists because of the outrageous behavior of polygraphers at all levels, (Local, State, Federal). The machine has no scientific validity and in my honest opinion is used by certain agencies to weed out already chosen undesireables, at least by the agencies standard. These agencies can't stop the hiring / interview processes, but they can be selective and bias on who they want to hire.
And the weapon of choice they use is the polygraph.
Knowlege of countermeasures and the polygraph process guarantees that during a polygraph I know what the rules of engagement are. If the polygrapher just once steps out of line. I know what to do and how to do it. And the polygraphers now have to play by the rules, because they don't know who they are dealing with. But the fact that its less than 100% accurate makes it nothing more than an interrogation parlor trick. And to judge one person with a false positive in any setting is just wrong. And as far as the "Status Quo" for a set in stone system. The system is broke, the LE community can't get enough folks, the federal government (military, intelligence) can't get enough folks. So removing a useless procedure not only saves money but allows for a fairer evaluation process, based on facts not some fiction, produced by some readout of a worthless machine. And if your such a non believer of the polygraph, then why are you here ? I question authority at every opportunity. You should try it ?? And again I state that reseaching polygraphy, countermeasures and non belief in the system is never wrong. Skepticism and dissent is what keeps a government from sliding into a police state. The first steps towards a police state begins when a system is created to remove undesireables from competing. Especially ones that only allow mindless minions who follow blindly to get hired. The best and brighest move on after they become disillusioned with this mindset.
Tell me then what you do, or is your nice and safe govt. job the only thing you can do. But do continue posting as the heavy guns on this board have yet to chime in.
But they are coming.
Quote from: Wallerstein on Mar 28, 2006, 12:24 PM
Given that you've chosen to write ad nauseum on this subject I think I could be forgiven for assuming that you've actually read Onesisums' original post. In it he describes in detail what questions he was asked. Granted this is not "an official document" but if this is your newest reasoning, i.e., there are no official documents and Onesismus has a good imagination, then let's not be coy...come out and say it.
So please go back and reference Onesismus' original post and you will find the questions. He's even taken the time to link to his original post above.
Those are the questions he claims from a previous clearance process, correct?
PentaFed - as a public service, I will pick apart your post.
QuoteAnd if you believe that taking positive steps to interfere in a government investigation is akin to using a radar detector which detects speed traps (a civil infraction I might add) than you surely have no baseline that you refer to when you're deciding what is right and what is wrong in terms of YOUR behavior.
The polygraph is hardly an "invetsigation." It is an interrogative tool used to divine information from the subject's own physiological responses. The very term "investigation" connotes rigorous, lengthy scrutiny. A polygraph lasts a few hours and can be beaten by those trained to beat it. That's not an investigation. As for radar detectors, they're legal in many states.
QuoteFrom what you've written you sound like a paranoid who thinks the government is "out to get him." I wouldn't trust you with my morning newspaper.
Is accusing people of being paranoid your m.o.? This ties into my earlier claim that you are indeed projecting your insecurities on others. Merely questioning authority or the status quo does not make someone paranoid. As for your morning paper, few of us have interest in handling your copy of
The Adventures of Tin Tin, despite its comedic tales of adventurism.
QuoteIn your eyes if someone is a polygrapher or works for the government, they have an evil agenda to attack you and all who take polygraphs. The fact is that hundreds of people pass polygraphs every year and, while I don't support their use, the horror and injustices you purport to take place aren't as widespread as you would like us all to believe.
You're actually correct here - hundreds, maybe thousands pass each year. The horrors and injustices aren't that widespread, but I don't think anyone here is saying that it's the end of the universe. The fact of the matter, a non-ignorable number of dreams are shattered because of a flawed machine. This is where we may differ: I find it unacceptable that otherwise qualified people miss out on a lifetime opportunity because a flawed machine said they're lying. People who served in the military, spent 10, 20 years preparing for such a career, qualified folks - all their dreams evaporated in an instant. This is the only country that uses polygraphs so seriously - it's something you'd expect to be used in Iran or North Korea - not America. A thorough background investigation conducted by good investigators will reveal anything the applicant has hid/is hiding. In many ways, the polygraph gives investigators a false sense of security that shouldn't exist.
QuoteYes, I don't believe polygraphy is a good means to an end. But, we've already seen examples of the kind of wayward thinking that you display, so you're certainly in no position to discuss ethics.
You ask why he calls you "high and mighty." When you speak like this, and engage in ad hominem attacks, you lose a tremendous deal of credibility. You seem to have something to say - try and ariculate yourself without attacking those who disagree/pose different views. You'd really be amazed what a bit of grace and patience would do for your credibility here and elsewhere.
Quote...If your goal is to educate and informa the public about the weak reliability of polygraphs, fine. If your goal is to lobby the government to end their use, fine. When you get to the point where you're encouraging people involved in an employment or clearance process to take active, dishonest, steps to try and beat the thing, you've crossed the line.
This is a matter of opinion. No one here wants unqualified people in positions of trust. No one. We all love this country. The information here is here for a couple of simple reasons: 1) put nervous minds at ease by demystifying a process that
relies on ignorance to work; and 2) provide a means for more proactive people to ensure they pass when they should. As for malicious people relying on this info, give me a break. First, spies are usually turned, Aldrich Ames-style. Second, anyone who wants to beat the polygraph could look elsewhere to find out how to. This site is just a concentrated bastion of anti-polygraphy sentiment. The info is out there elsewhere.
This reminds me of people who bemoan movies that have intricate terrorist plots - "Oh my, why would you make a movie like that and give the terrorists such an idea?!"
QuoteI'm curious, how do you feel about peopole who actually do have integrity issues beating the polygraph? Do you just support honest people beating the system or are you in favor of having shitbags get access to our national secrets?
See above. No one wants this country to be harmed. BUT we want it to do the right thing- and polygraphs are simply wrong as a matter of policy, stupid as a matter of course, and deeply flawed.
Quote from: EosJupiter on Mar 28, 2006, 02:41 PM
PentaFed,
I have throughout any posting on this medium have never once advocated dishonesty. This website exists because of the outrageous behavior of polygraphers at all levels, (Local, State, Federal). The machine has no scientific validity and in my honest opinion is used by certain agencies to weed out already chosen undesireables, at least by the agencies standard. These agencies can't stop the hiring / interview processes, but they can be selective and bias on who they want to hire.
And the weapon of choice they use is the polygraph.
Knowlege of countermeasures and the polygraph process guarantees that during a polygraph I know what the rules of engagement are. If the polygrapher just once steps out of line. I know what to do and how to do it. And the polygraphers now have to play by the rules, because they don't know who they are dealing with. But the fact that its less than 100% accurate makes it nothing more than an interrogation parlor trick. And to judge one person with a false positive in any setting is just wrong. And as far as the "Status Quo" for a set in stone system. The system is broke, the LE community can't get enough folks, the federal government (military, intelligence) can't get enough folks. So removing a useless procedure not only saves money but allows for a fairer evaluation process, based on facts not some fiction, produced by some readout of a worthless machine. And if your such a non believer of the polygraph, then why are you here ? I question authority at every opportunity. You should try it ?? And again I state that reseaching polygraphy, countermeasures and non belief in the system is never wrong. Skepticism and dissent is what keeps a government from sliding into a police state. The first steps towards a police state begins when a system is created to remove undesireables from competing. Especially ones that only allow mindless minions who follow blindly to get hired. The best and brighest move on after they become disillusioned with this mindset.
Tell me then what you do, or is your nice and safe govt. job the only thing you can do. But do continue posting as the heavy guns on this board have yet to chime in.
But they are coming.
First let me say that I'm just shivering in my shoes waiting for your "big guns"..ewwwwww! (PLEASE, spare us all the DRAMA!) I came to this site through a link from a law enforcement forum. Is your position that only those who should come here are those that will just buy hook, line, and sinker, every piece of crap put forth by someone who failed a clearance process? If that's your constituency here then you make yourselves totally irrelevant, regardless of anything else that happens. So just what countermeasures do you support, if not to be dishonest? Also, I have no problem with people speaking in generality, but is it your position that all or most polygraphers are sketchy, shady people who break the rules? As for what I "do", don't concern yourself with that. The only thing you need to know is that I've got plenty of experience with clearances, am well-educated, and have worked in government, non-profts, and the private-sector in both sensitive and non-sensitive occupations. Providing any more specific information to a person like you merely gives you latitude to make me or my job the target of your hostility here and allows you a free-pass to avoid facts and REAL issues. Nevermind me what I do, just stick with arguing the POINTS that have been raised. So far all I can see that you do is blindly defend anyone who comes on this site with anti-polygraph venom. I'll say it a fourth time: I do not support the use of polygraphs as a means to an end in employment or clearance. You can either accept that, or you not. I really don't care. But just because I dont accept them, doesnt mean I'm willing to excuse other unacceptable behavior displayed by applicants, nor am I willing to condone dishonest acts in order to interfere with the process. Your willingess to do so, speaks to YOUR integrity.
Quote from: PentaFed on Mar 28, 2006, 04:04 PM
Those are the questions he claims from a previous clearance process, correct?
YES. THE SAME QUESTIONS THAT TIE INTO HIS FAILED 3RD PROCESS. NOW ANSWER THE QUESTION.
Quote from: Wallerstein on Mar 28, 2006, 04:17 PM
YES. THE SAME QUESTIONS THAT TIE INTO HIS FAILED 3RD PROCESS. NOW ANSWER THE QUESTION.
You're asking me to answer a question outside of the context in which they were asked, and without the benefit of having access to the other information. Your question is BOGUS. My earlier opinion stands. He should have answered whatever questions were posed to him during the process and THEN complained about them. You don't know what the circumstances were in that room, nor do I. You don't know what questions were going to asked during his last clearance process, so you your question begins with an unconfirmed premise. You sit here as if you were in the room when the questions were asked. Who the F...K are you? LOL, people like you are not only amusing, but scary. Your question is like me asking you "ok, everyone knows that God doesn't exist, so how is going to church relevant to being spiritual?" You are truly BIZARRE, friend.
Quote from: PentaFed on Mar 28, 2006, 04:30 PM
You're asking me to answer a question outside of the context in which they were asked, and without the benefit of having access to the other information. Your question is BOGUS. My earlier opinion stands. He should have answered whatever questions were posed to him during the process and THEN complained about them. You don't know what the circumstances were in that room, nor do I. You don't know what questions were going to asked during his last clearance process, so you your question begins with an unconfirmed premise. You sit here as if you were in the room when the questions were asked. Who the F...K are you? LOL, people like you are not only amusing, but scary. Your question is like me asking you "ok, everyone knows that God doesn't exist, so how is going to church relevant to being spiritual?" You are truly BIZARRE, friend.
What is my unconfirmed premise? I have simply asked
How does Onesismus' refusal to posit guesses concerning girls that he works with constitute "refusing to answer details about his personal life?"
Simple really. Please do answer.
Quote from: antrella on Mar 28, 2006, 04:07 PMPentaFed - as a public service, I will pick apart your post.
The polygraph is hardly an "invetsigation." It is an interrogative tool used to divine information from the subject's own physiological responses. The very term "investigation" connotes rigorous, lengthy scrutiny. A polygraph lasts a few hours and can be beaten by those trained to beat it. That's not an investigation. As for radar detectors, they're legal in many states.
Is accusing people of being paranoid your m.o.? This ties into my earlier claim that you are indeed projecting your insecurities on others. Merely questioning authority or the status quo does not make someone paranoid. As for your morning paper, few of us have interest in handling your copy of The Adventures of Tin Tin, despite its comedic tales of adventurism.
You're actually correct here - hundreds, maybe thousands pass each year. The horrors and injustices aren't that widespread, but I don't think anyone here is saying that it's the end of the universe. The fact of the matter, a non-ignorable number of dreams are shattered because of a flawed machine. This is where we may differ: I find it unacceptable that otherwise qualified people miss out on a lifetime opportunity because a flawed machine said they're lying. People who served in the military, spent 10, 20 years preparing for such a career, qualified folks - all their dreams evaporated in an instant. This is the only country that uses polygraphs so seriously - it's something you'd expect to be used in Iran or North Korea - not America. A thorough background investigation conducted by good investigators will reveal anything the applicant has hid/is hiding. In many ways, the polygraph gives investigators a false sense of security that shouldn't exist.
You ask why he calls you "high and mighty." When you speak like this, and engage in ad hominem attacks, you lose a tremendous deal of credibility. You seem to have something to say - try and ariculate yourself without attacking those who disagree/pose different views. You'd really be amazed what a bit of grace and patience would do for your credibility here and elsewhere.
This is a matter of opinion. No one here wants unqualified people in positions of trust. No one. We all love this country. The information here is here for a couple of simple reasons: 1) put nervous minds at ease by demystifying a process that relies on ignorance to work; and 2) provide a means for more proactive people to ensure they pass when they should. As for malicious people relying on this info, give me a break. First, spies are usually turned, Aldrich Ames-style. Second, anyone who wants to beat the polygraph could look elsewhere to find out how to. This site is just a concentrated bastion of anti-polygraphy sentiment. The info is out there elsewhere.
This reminds me of people who bemoan movies that have intricate terrorist plots - "Oh my, why would you make a movie like that and give the terrorists such an idea?!"
See above. No one wants this country to be harmed. BUT we want it to do the right thing- and polygraphs are simply wrong as a matter of policy, stupid as a matter of course, and deeply flawed.
Let me first say I appreciate your coming back, even after telling me you wouldn't reespond to me again. But hey, what's one more contradiction, right? 1) No, the polygraph is one part of a full investigation into a person's background. 2) Hey, just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. I agree. Projecting my insecurities? No, I don't believe the government, or anyone else for that matter, is out to get me. Questioning authority is fine. But there's a marked difference in the former and in being decidely ANTI-authority. Which are you? 3) I commiserate with those who have had issues with background processes. Life is rarely fair. I've had plenty of dreams shattered in my lifetime. I've experienced tremendous injustices. I encourage people to seek to change those injustices for the better. Where I generally disagree with some of those people is in how they go about it. I also encourage people to move on with their lives and do something else, and to take responsibility and ownership for their part of the failings. This is a particular case where a man refused to do things the proper way, in my opinion. And, instead of taking ownership for the way he handled it, he and others pat him on the back. 4) The only thing I've offered here is my opiniuon and the reasoning I've based it on. Somehow, getting lectures on personal attacks from a man whose original response to me was to insult my understanding of the law, and then mock my typing and paragraph formatting on an internet bulletin, doens't carry a whole lot of credibilty either. Oh, and if you want to talk about credibilty, don't remove all your past postings when you are shown to be a self-contradicting, inconsistent, ignoramus. You have done little else here except to attack me personally. Your rantings have shown you to be someone who will blindly defend anyone and anything if it plays into your agenda. 5) Yes, it is a matter of opinion. Most everything that's been posted here is a matter of opinion. I accept different opinion but that doens't mean I have to agree with them. One difference between you and I is on how we reach our opinions. We also have fundamental differences in how we perceive and deal with authority. 6) I don't know how many times I need to say this but I DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE USE OF POLYGRAPHS FOR PURPOSES OF BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION. Is there something specific about that you don't get?
Quote from: Wallerstein on Mar 28, 2006, 04:47 PM
What is my unconfirmed premise? I have simply asked
How does Onesismus' refusal to posit guesses concerning girls that he works with constitute "refusing to answer details about his personal life?"
Simple really. Please do answer.
Simple, really. I don't know that that was the case. Who says those would have been the questions that he didn't stick around long enough to hear???????????
To EOSJupiter
Antrella
Wallerstein
Please lay out your opinion on this case and your reasoning in reaching your opinion. Please do so without engaging in drama, hype, name-calling, diversion from the subject, indictment of ALL polygraphers, indictment of the government. Just simply lay out why you believe that the applcant is CORRECT and why you think the government is WRONG. You can leave out all the posters on this thread, they don't have anything to do with your arguments relative to stating your opinion. I've already, repeatedly, stated my opinion. And it is simple. 1) i don't support use of polygraphs here 2) I don;t believe the original poster to have a credible claim here because he didn't handle the situation the right way. The one sure way to bring closure to this debate is for each of the biggest antagonists to clearly state their opinion. By doing this, the reader is able to view, firsthand, what the opinion holder is all about. I have a feeling mmany of the people who post here will support each and every person who comes along here with a tale of woe, regardless of how they handled it or whetehr they are people of integrity or not. One way I have of senseing this is in the sheer vigor with which they defend a man whom they know absolutely NOTHING about. This would tend to paint that type of person as someone more interested in driving their agenda, than they are interested in doing what's RIGHT. Nowhere have you seen me vigorously defend the government, the actions of earlier polygrapher, or dishonesty of polygraphers in general. I haven't even supported polygraphs. Yet, you all go above and beyond mrely being critical of polygraphy and bad polygraphers and will go to the ends of the earth to defend all the actions of someone you know nothing about. That speaks volumes.
PentaFed,
You have stated (and have confirmed on several occasions) that you do not support the use of polygraph examinations (stated variously on different occasions). I do not support the practice of polygraph screening either and will do what I can to see this practice stop. I am curious as to whether you are actively seeking to have it stopped, and if so, what actions you are taking in this regard and what you recommend to (1) the false-positive victims of this practice who want to make sure others are not victimized and to (2) prospective innocent polygraph examinees who visit this site and are concerned that they will become the next false positive polygraph victims.
Quote from: Drew Richardson on Mar 28, 2006, 05:36 PMPentaFed,
You have stated (and have confirmed on several occasions) that you do not support the use of polygraph examinations (stated variously on different occasions). I do not support the practice of polygraph screening either and will do what I can to see this practice stop. I am curious as to whether you are actively seeking to have it stopped, and if so, what actions you are taking in this regard and what you recommend to (1) the false-positive victims of this practice who want to make sure others are not victimized and to (2) prospective innocent polygraph examinees who visit this site and are concerned that they will become the next false positive polygraph victims.
No, I'm not actively working to have it stopped. My plate is full with other activities. However, I do support legitimate people and efforts who are actively working to have it stopped. Why do you ask?
PentaFed,
You write:
Quote
No, I'm not actively working to have it stopped. My plate is full with other activities. However, I do support legitimate people and efforts who are actively working to have it stopped. Why do you ask?
You seek to address an audience about issues of concern to you stemming from an anecdotal case. I suspect you will have a more receptive ear from such people (composed in part by the groups I inquired as to your advice to regarding issues of concern to them) if they recognize that your concerns about the polygraph process are not merely crocodile tears.
Quote from: Drew Richardson on Mar 28, 2006, 05:55 PMPentaFed,
You write:
You seek to address an audience about issues of concern to you stemming from an anecdotal case. I suspect you will have a more receptive ear from such people (composed in part by the groups I inquired as to your advice to regarding issues of concern to them) if they recognize that your concerns about the polygraph process are not merely crocodile tears.
I came upon this website through a link that George posted on a Law Enforcement forum. (A website that appears to be quite open to participation from a variety of individuals and not the organized 'audience' that you seem to have envisioned) This thread was one of the first I read. I commented and then got caught in debate. If you're asking me if railing against polygraphs is my "calling" from the God of my understanding, the answer is a resounding no. While I have been deeply involved in many civic/political efforts involving criminal justice issues, use of polygraphs is not one of them, nor will it probably be for me in the near future. I'm also vehemently opposed to the death penalty, but do not activley work to end it, at this point. However, I would definitley focus on that, before I would on polygraphs. With that said, I don't minimize, but actually applaud the legitimate efforts of legit people in this area. I'm sorry if I don't live up to your or anybody else's standards of what a true polygraph ooponent is supposed to be. But I really don't see how that matters here. One good aspect of this debate is that is has actually caused my promotion in "rank" from a one-star to a two-star user ;D
Quote from: PentaFed on Mar 28, 2006, 05:14 PMTo EOSJupiter
Antrella
Wallerstein
Please lay out your opinion on this case and your reasoning in reaching your opinion. Please do so without engaging in drama, hype, name-calling, diversion from the subject, indictment of ALL polygraphers, indictment of the government. Just simply lay out why you believe that the applcant is CORRECT and why you think the government is WRONG. You can leave out all the posters on this thread, they don't have anything to do with your arguments relative to stating your opinion. I've already, repeatedly, stated my opinion. And it is simple. 1) i don't support use of polygraphs here 2) I don;t believe the original poster to have a credible claim here because he didn't handle the situation the right way. The one sure way to bring closure to this debate is for each of the biggest antagonists to clearly state their opinion. By doing this, the reader is able to view, firsthand, what the opinion holder is all about. I have a feeling mmany of the people who post here will support each and every person who comes along here with a tale of woe, regardless of how they handled it or whetehr they are people of integrity or not. One way I have of senseing this is in the sheer vigor with which they defend a man whom they know absolutely NOTHING about. This would tend to paint that type of person as someone more interested in driving their agenda, than they are interested in doing what's RIGHT. Nowhere have you seen me vigorously defend the government, the actions of earlier polygrapher, or dishonesty of polygraphers in general. I haven't even supported polygraphs. Yet, you all go above and beyond mrely being critical of polygraphy and bad polygraphers and will go to the ends of the earth to defend all the actions of someone you know nothing about. That speaks volumes.
as far as my opinions on this matter go, I have challenged you repeatedly to explain to me the following:
How does Onesismus' refusal to posit guesses concerning girls that he works with constitute "refusing to answer details about his personal life?"
That is all I am concerned with. Incidentally, I am still waiting for an answer.
Quote from: Wallerstein on Mar 28, 2006, 06:10 PM
as far as my opinions on this matter go, I have challenged you repeatedly to explain to me the following:
How does Onesismus' refusal to posit guesses concerning girls that he works with constitute "refusing to answer details about his personal life?"
That is all I am concerned with. Incidentally, I am still waiting for an answer.
Of course that's all you're concerned with. You set up a straw-man argument to take attention away from the fact that you have nothing reasonable to offer to the debate. I've answered your question, you just refuse to accept it. That's on you, not on me. I'm waiting for your answers....
Quote from: PentaFed on Mar 28, 2006, 06:12 PM
Of course that's all you're concerned with. You set up a straw-man argument to take attention away from the fact that you have nothing reasonable to offer to the debate. I've answered your question, you just refuse to accept it. That's on you, not on me. I'm waiting for your answers....
Indulge/amuse me by repeating your answer please. I seem to have forgotten it.
Quote from: Wallerstein on Mar 28, 2006, 06:22 PM
Indulge/amuse me by repeating your answer please. I seem to have forgotten it.
Read for yourself. Now, did you have anything substantive to offer the debate or did you create another strawman to entertain us with?
Quote from: PentaFed on Mar 28, 2006, 06:24 PM
Read for yourself. Now, did you have anything substantive to offer the debate or did you create another strawman to entertain us with?
Hilarious. You win. Now leave me alone.
Quote from: Wallerstein on Mar 28, 2006, 06:28 PM
Hilarious. You win. Now leave me alone.
Oh ok. What's hilarious is that the only thing you can offer this discussion is your narrowly constrcuted strawman question that you've posed by someone who has no clue as to which questions were asked, and to someone with the same level of knowledge. Before you can pose a legitimate question, the basis for the question has to be legitimate. You have no idea what questions were to be asked of the man, because he left before he could answer them and they aren't written on any of the docs he's posted.
I'll let you waddle off and wimper in the corner LOL. Bye now.
Quote from: PentaFed on Mar 28, 2006, 06:32 PM
Oh ok. What's hilarious is that the only thing you can offer this discussion is your narrowly constrcuted strawman question that you've posed by someone who has no clue as to which questions were asked, and to someone with the same level of knowledge. Before you can pose a legitimate question, the basis for the question has to be legitimate. You have no idea what questions were to be asked of the man, because he left before he could answer them and they aren't written on any of the docs he's posted.
I'll let you waddle off and wimper in the corner LOL. Bye now.
So was the first version of the message the "abridged" version. Thanks for the longer version. You've constructed an even larger facade of bullshit in your refusal to answer a simple question:
How does Onesismus' refusal to posit guesses concerning girls that he works with constitute "refusing to answer details about his personal life?"
Come on Strawman give it a shot! I'm at the edge of my seat! :-*
PentaFed,
Your last reply to me contained the following:
Quote
...But I really don't see how that matters here....
Actually it doesn't—that is if you don't care about the size and composition of the audience you address. You raise some valid considerations, but again, I am afraid they will fall on deaf ears lest you are perceived as truly empathetic toward the victim(s) that read your thoughts and are asked to heed your advice/admonition(s). I believe an appropriate analogy from the medical field would be a physician who harps on the necessity of sanitation (quite valid, but quite inopportune) when presented with the complications and immediate needs of a knife-stab victim. Regards...
p.s. Congrats on the promotion ;)
Quote from: Wallerstein on Mar 28, 2006, 06:45 PM
So was the first version of the message the "abridged" version. Thanks for the longer version. You've constructed an even larger facade of bullshit in your refusal to answer a simple question:
How does Onesismus' refusal to posit guesses concerning girls that he works with constitute "refusing to answer details about his personal life?"
Come on Strawman give it a shot! I'm at the edge of my seat! :-*
I never made any claims that it did. As far as I can see, nobody here claimed it did. So what is the basis of that question? How many eggs does a female salamander lay and what is their relationship to the rotation of earth? When you have something substantive to say, I might respond to you. Until then you;ll be ignored because you dont seem to have any ability to debate. ???
Quote from: Drew Richardson on Mar 28, 2006, 06:59 PMPentaFed,
Your last reply to me contained the following:
Actually it doesn't—that is if you don't care about the size and composition of the audience you address. You raise some valid considerations, but again, I am afraid they will fall on deaf ears lest you are perceived as truly empathetic toward the victim(s) that read your thoughts and are asked to heed your advice/admonition(s). I believe an appropriate analogy from the medical field would be a physician who harps on the necessity of sanitation (quite valid, but quite inopportune) when presented with the complications and immediate needs of a knife-stab victim. Regards...
p.s. Congrats on the promotion ;)
I don't have any empathy for the applicant, and I don't see him as a 'victim' at this point for reasons I've already hashed over many times here. I have no idea which of his statements is true and which is just poppycock. He's just a screen name to me. The only thing I do know is what I've read in the docs, and by his own admission. ANd, given those facts, I don't view him as being a posterboy for the elimination of polygraphs.
PentaFed,
The elimination of polygraph (screening) examinations does not require a poster boy or your recognition of one...just the common sense and judgment that you have been calling for. Regards...
Quote from: PentaFed on Mar 28, 2006, 07:37 PM
I don't have any empathy for the applicant, and I don't see him as a 'victim' at this point for reasons I've already hashed over many times here. I have no idea which of his statements is true and which is just poppycock. He's just a screen name to me. The only thing I do know is what I've read in the docs, and by his own admission. ANd, given those facts, I don't view him as being a posterboy for the elimination of polygraphs.
PentaFed,
I will tone down the rhetoric, in return all I ask is that you try and understand why I believe that Onesimus got a raw deal. The question in point is why do you think the polygraph system exists? and the point is if something so flawed is relied on to judge people then anything less than 100% accuracy is wrong. A flawed system is a flawed system. If I delivered systems that were that flawed I would be fired. I just don't accept every tale of woe. as we have had many on this board that are highly suspect. I don't disregard your need to defend what you believe to be correct and right. But I do object to the fact of you branding me and the other antipolygraph supporters as lying, dishonest, and that we have no integrity, as you know very little about me and what I am beyond this medium. I support my stance because I have been through the false positives and the anguish that comes with it. Empathy is something that comes from understanding. I hope you never have to be subjected to a polygraph and a false positive. But we will be waiting because if you have a clearance you will be sitting on the box, one day. We do allow opinion changes. And this board is open to all opinions. Unlike the pro polygraph board that tolerates no counter views what so ever.
Regards ...
Quote from: PentaFed on Mar 28, 2006, 07:31 PM
I never made any claims that it did. As far as I can see, nobody here claimed it did. So what is the basis of that question? How many eggs does a female salamander lay and what is their relationship to the rotation of earth? When you have something substantive to say, I might respond to you. Until then you;ll be ignored because you dont seem to have any ability to debate. ???
I see how you've really been ignoring me. Keep up the good work, champ.
Since your "responses" to my simple question has yielded now myriad retreats (first, "I already answered that question...see above", then "this is a strawman question" to now "i never made such a claim") I will try to reconstruct this entire bullshit argument. Please let me know where i have gone wrong.
On this web site we have a man who was challenged by a polygrapher to answer absurd questions regarding teenage girls because he "admitted" to the polygrapher that he played checkers once online with a 13 year old. His rejection letter says as much. The questions posed to him were lewd, sick and absurdly inappropriate. They were not "yes/no" questions that could simply be deflected by a "yes/no" answer. Instead, these questions required the applicant to offer guesses about completely inappropriate subjects. This made applicant uneasy, nervous and disgusted. He refused to answer. He got his clearance denied.
Now you have a man who has lost his clearance, yet had the cojones to detail the whole sordid affair online here, complete with copies of the letters he's received. Yet you pop in and are in disbelief that he could be surprised because he did not "answer questions about his personal life" when asked.
Given that this is the central defense of your argument that applicant was justly rejected (namely, he did not answer questions about his personal life) I have *repeatedly* asked you how the questions that were posed to applicant concern his private life.
That's it. Please tell me how these questions concern his private life.
Quote from: Wallerstein on Mar 29, 2006, 01:03 PM
I see how you've really been ignoring me. Keep up the good work, champ.
Since your "responses" to my simple question has yielded now myriad retreats (first, "I already answered that question...see above", then "this is a strawman question" to now "i never made such a claim") I will try to reconstruct this entire bullshit argument. Please let me know where i have gone wrong.
On this web site we have a man who was challenged by a polygrapher to answer absurd questions regarding teenage girls because he "admitted" to the polygrapher that he played checkers once online with a 13 year old. His rejection letter says as much. The questions posed to him were lewd, sick and absurdly inappropriate. They were not "yes/no" questions that could simply be deflected by a "yes/no" answer. Instead, these questions required the applicant to offer guesses about completely inappropriate subjects. This made applicant uneasy, nervous and disgusted. He refused to answer. He got his clearance denied.
Now you have a man who has lost his clearance, yet had the cojones to detail the whole sordid affair online here, complete with copies of the letters he's received. Yet you pop in and are in disbelief that he could be surprised because he did not "answer questions about his personal life" when asked.
Given that this is the central defense of your argument that applicant was justly rejected (namely, he did not answer questions about his personal life) I have *repeatedly* asked you how the questions that were posed to applicant concern his private life.
That's it. Please tell me how these questions concern his private life.
The one thing worse than a dishonest polygrapher is a guy who just invents things and apes other people fact, when he doesn't know what the truth is. You have no clue as to what the questions were going to be. And the letter does NOT say 'as much." By the way, the very last time I responsed to you is when I said I would ignore you until you had something substantive to say. Apparently the only subtance you have is to "lie." It's always good to expose a liar, but it really gets boring arguing with intellectual lightweights like you and antrella who need to stoop to lying, fabricating, and diverting attention to anything you can lay your hands on if it avoids the FACTS in front of you. lol
Quote from: EosJupiter on Mar 29, 2006, 05:38 AM
PentaFed,
I will tone down the rhetoric, in return all I ask is that you try and understand why I believe that Onesimus got a raw deal. The question in point is why do you think the polygraph system exists? and the point is if something so flawed is relied on to judge people then anything less than 100% accuracy is wrong. A flawed system is a flawed system. If I delivered systems that were that flawed I would be fired. I just don't accept every tale of woe. as we have had many on this board that are highly suspect. I don't disregard your need to defend what you believe to be correct and right. But I do object to the fact of you branding me and the other antipolygraph supporters as lying, dishonest, and that we have no integrity, as you know very little about me and what I am beyond this medium. I support my stance because I have been through the false positives and the anguish that comes with it. Empathy is something that comes from understanding. I hope you never have to be subjected to a polygraph and a false positive. But we will be waiting because if you have a clearance you will be sitting on the box, one day. We do allow opinion changes. And this board is open to all opinions. Unlike the pro polygraph board that tolerates no counter views what so ever.
Regards ...
Any accusations I've made against you Ive been specific and have backed them up with references to what you, yourself, have written. There is no need to try and create the illusion that I've called you dishonest merely becuase you dont support polygraphs. I haven't come here and made blanket attacks on your integrity....and any attempts by you to do that would be pure intellectual dishonesty. You know that's a blatant perversion of reality, and so do most readers. If I questioned your integrity it was in the way you reason. When you say things like using countermeaures to beat the system, that involves a level if dishonesty. You've made other statements that also put youre integirty into question in my opinion. Where those statements were made, I've pointed them out. As for your argument about 'systems' not working. If everyone refused to cooperate with, tried to beat or tried to get around every rule system that doesn't work to my standards, where would that leave the world. Here's the point, nobody will ever be able to have a credible debate with people who are decidely opposed to all or most forms of authority. When you begin your discussion about these issues from your standpoint, it's a non-discussable topic from the start because you basically fundamantelly disagree with doing what most people think is right and that is, use our existing SYSTEMS to correct those that aren't working properly. When the applicants refused to answer any furture questions regarding topics he he didn't want to discuss, he declined his own clearance. Period. Neither you, nor wallterstein know what5 those questions would have been because the guy never got the chance to ask them. The inappriopriate polygrapher was from a PREVIOUS clearnace and you two keep trying to morph them, and the rest of the polygraphers on the planet, into the one bad polygrapher identified in the authentic, but vague, letter. Now if you want to take issue with the POINTS I have made here they are as written in the sentences above this one. Nothing more has really been said by me opn this topic. It boils down to what I believe is a right way and a wrong way of doing things. I'll compare that position to your posituion of blinddly defending anyone who comes here (even when its clear you know nothing about them) with a tale of woe around their background process. To me, the latter is just plain ridiculous, and doesn nothing to add to the credibility of polygraph opponents. It would seem that you and wallerstein dont have the abilty to make presuasive arguments with adding a whole bunch of hype, drama, and half-truths in your posting to steer attention away from the fact that you will back EVERYTHING about Onesimus's side of the story because you are more interested in advancing your cause against, than you are in worrying about any facts or truths. It's very simple. Never let facts or truth get in the way of a good drama, right?
Quote from: PentaFed on Mar 30, 2006, 08:23 AM
The one thing worse than a dishonest polygrapher is a guy who just invents things and apes other people fact, when he doesn't know what the truth is. You have no clue as to what the questions were going to be. And the letter does NOT say 'as much." By the way, the very last time I responsed to you is when I said I would ignore you until you had something substantive to say. Apparently the only subtance you have is to "lie." It's always good to expose a liar, but it really gets boring arguing with intellectual lightweights like you and antrella who need to stoop to lying, fabricating, and diverting attention to anything you can lay your hands on if it avoids the FACTS in front of you. lol
Now I am a liar ;D. This is Kafka-esque. :'(
I wish I could type in simple symbols to make this easier. :-/ :( >:( ??? :)
You made a claim that Onesimus deserved to get rejected because he did not answer questions regarding his personal life. True or false?
If true*, answer the following: explain how the questions asked to Onesimus concerned his "personal life."
*If instead you are now claiming that Onesimus is a liar and is not telling the whole truth then fine. That makes this whole argument pointless.
Wallerstein,
Arguing with PentaFed always comes back to the same bureaucratic dogma, and self righteous BS. But I guess being a liar and having no integrity then I can do just what I want to then.
KEY POINTS
He works for the Government and he's here to help.
The government is always right
He is always right.
Which point here sounds like the words that would come from an orwellian novel. ANd just think he never knows who might be traveling next to ...
Question Authority !!!
And the Moral Majority is Neither !!!
Regards
EosJupiter/Wallerstein,
I am not sure what PentaFed is suggesting with regard to and to what extremes he would go with his notions of deference to authority and working within a system, but I am glad we have the examples of George Washington and friends who did not act as slaves to either a mindless or tyrannical bureaucracy at the time of the American Revolution and Mark Felt and company who did not at the time of Watergate (as well as the host of other examples of those in between and since who have likewise chosen not to). His linking of your various defense(s) (whether right, wrong, completely or incompletely substantiated) of Onesimus and your separate but valid opposition to polygraphy does not hold water.
Drew:
Sometimes questioning authority just for the hell of it can label you as a smart ass and/or parasnoid, depending how and why you do it. If you do it for no reason then you are going to be resented, which is human nature. Then you have to face the consequences. I may be wrong but my opinion is that if he asnswered the questions and cooperated he may have been cleared.
Comparing the attitude and actions of the Brits during the Revolutionary War to the current estabishment is a little dramatic and absurd, don't you think?
PentaFed came to this discussion maintaining (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=2954.msg20962#msg20962) that "When requesting a clearance of this level an applicant should be willing to discuss anything about himself." However, when I brought to his attention Stephen J. MacKellar's letter (http://antipolygraph.org/documents/onesimus-apology-letter.pdf) conceding that Onesimus had in fact been asked inappropriate questions, PentaFed fell back (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=2954.msg20987#msg20987) to the argument that, "If [Onesimus] had issues with what was being requested he should have complied and THEN made his complaints." It seems that this remains the crux of PentaFed's position.
I could agree with PentaFed that if an applicant's number one priority is to get a security clearance and job at any cost, then it is probably in his best interest to answer any question asked, no matter how inappropriate. And polygraphers for such agencies as the CIA and NSA do routinely ask very inappropriate questions. One CIA applicant (http://antipolygraph.org/statements/statement-009.shtml) reports regarding his pre-employment polygraph interrogation:
QuoteDuring this series of questions I really lose it. The interrogation focuses on deviant sexual behavior. I'm unsure what he's fishing for and ask him to clarify. He explains deviant sexual behavior as any sex acts other than what is known as the missionary position. That strikes me as ridiculous and I ask him if he's kidding. Of course, he's not. The interrogator wants to know how many sex partners I have had; how many of them are married; if I have ever contracted sexually transmitted diseases, if so, how often, where, when. Have I ever paid for sex, when, where. Have I ever participated in sm., bondage, bestiality. What sort of positions. You name it, he wants to know.
And as noted in
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf), another CIA applicant was asked, among other things, the following questions:
- Do you masturbate?
- What do you think about while masturbating?
- Have you ever had sex with another man?
- Have you ever thought about having sex with another man?
- Why did your wife leave you?
- Couldn't you satisfy your wife sexually?
- Has she or any other woman accused you of being unable
to satisfy them?
- Have you ever thought about having sex with your mother?
I think the appropriate response of any freedom-loving American to such questions should be, "Fuck you, asshole!" accompanied with the traditional hand and arm signal.
To those who think such questions are appropriate, or that anyone seeking a security clearance should willingly answer them, I suggest that you consider whether you might not make a happy cog in the machinery of a police state.
The following was emailed to me, but I'm not very good at cut and paste. So am typing it.
It started me thinking which is dangerous. Could the polygraph, FIRSTFRUITS, etc., etc., be applied here. The evasiveness of some direct pertinent questions to some government employees, here and in return letters of our elected officials (if any letters are answered) appears so. Only my thoughts, of coarse.
What is a fascist? Henry Wallace, 1944
In early 1944, the New York Times asked Vice President Henry Wallace to, as Wallace noted, write a piece answering the following questions: What is a fascist? How many fascist have we? How dangerous are they.
Wallace's answer to these questions was published in the Times on April 9, 1944, at the height of the war against Axis powers Germany and Japan. See how you think his statements apply to our society today.
"The really dangerous American fascist", Wallace wrote, is the man who really wants to do in the United States, in an American way, what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to decieve the public into giving the fascist and his group more money and more power".
In his strongest indictment of the tide of fascism he saw rising in America, Wallace added, "they claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the constitution. They demand free interprise, but are spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed, is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection".
Retcopper,
You write in part:
Quote
...Comparing the attitude and actions of the Brits during the Revolutionary War to the current establishment is a little dramatic and absurd, don't you think?...
Actually if you go back and read carefully you will see that my reference was to patriots, not a comparison between any tyrants (your antagonists are a bit juxtaposed too---Mark Felt's might be considered to be Richard Nixon, certainly not dubya) they may have faced. But now that you mention it, two Georges, one rumored to have syphilis, the other Mad Cowboy Disease....hmmmmmm......lol
Quote from: Drew Richardson on Mar 30, 2006, 04:29 PMRetcopper,
You write in part:
Actually if you go back and read carefully you will see that my reference was to patriots, not a comparison between any tyrants (your antagonists are a bit juxtaposed too---Mark Felt's might be considered to be Richard Nixon, certainly not dubya) they may have faced. But now that you mention it, two Georges, one rumored to have syphilis, the other Mad Cowboy Disease....hmmmmmm......lol
It's worth keeping in mind that the patriots of the Revolutionary war were in fact traitors. They were engaging in armed revolt against their sovereign. Further, while of course we take great pride in the fledgling democracy that came from that revolt, Britain outlawed slavery throughout their empire not long after. Some 3 decades or so before the States did.
Sounds harsh to call our founders traitors. Well, here's another surprise. At one time the word "loyal" had a rather bad odor for a simple reason. Just as the revolutionaries were called patriots (by fellow patriots of course) supporters of the Crown were called loyalists by everyone - hence the negative association.
My favorite personage from those days. A man who believed in good relations with the French. Actually lots of them. Still, he wanted to avoid being well hanged.
http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/quotable/quote71.htm
Marty,
Good Observations, and there is always 2 sides to everything. But for those that wish to question, a great movie is currently playing here in the US. Its title is:
V for Vendetta
Well worth the time to watch, as it is a warning to tyrannts & associated mindless bureaucrats, that they need to fear the people, not the people fear the government. And as one who does question, the movie really hits home. Hence the reason we have the right to bear arms. The first thing a police state does is remove arms from the population and suppress freedoms of speech and press. Then isolate those that will not follow mindlessly with the program.
Remember Remember the 5th of November ....
Gunpowder Rebellion 1605 ..
Regards ....
To all concerned:
Found this article online about the new rules for adjudication of clearances, these new rules are probably what did in Onesimus.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/U.S._quietly_tightens_access_to_classified_0313_af.html
Article text follows (actual document link to the rules is at the bottom of the document, off of the link).
----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. quietly tightens access to classified information
John Byrne and Larisa Alexandrovna
National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley quietly revised the guidelines for determining access to classified government information last year, increasing emphasis on allegiance to the United States and allowing the government broader latitude in rejecting candidates without a clearly articulated cause, RAW STORY has found. In a December 2005 revision of the "Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information," Hadley made semantic but substantial changes which seem to mirror a broader shift in Bush Administration policy. The document, found online, shows numerous variations from a previous copy of the guidelines published in 1997. Both are linked at the bottom of this article.
Many of the changes were minor or involved updates to catch up with technological advances. For example, the guidelines expand on certain areas with regard to storing or transferring classified information in electronic form.
But taken in sum, the changes seem to indicate an increased emphasis on eliminating leaks of classified information, and a stronger emphasis on loyalty to the United States and its agents. The changes also allow those determining whether an individual is granted a security clearance to rely on a conflation of various "suspect" factors rather than a clear violation of a single rule.
Moreover, the new guidelines are posed as recommendations for other agencies that are not privy to high-level classified information, suggesting a blanket emphasis on secrecy across all theaters of government.
Loyalty to the United States
Security clearance guidelines have always required strict allegiance to the United States. Both the 1997 and 2005 guidelines require that individuals seeking clearances not "act in such a way as to indicate preference for a foreign country over the United States."
But Hadley's 2005 guidelines go further. In addition to requiring that individuals not engage in material breaches of U.S. allegiance – including voting in a foreign election or expressing a desire to renounce citizenship – the 2005 guidelines assert that simply the vocalization of allegiance to another country is grounds for denial.
Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying now include "any statement or action that shows allegiance to a country other than the United States."
Broadening cause for denying clearances
The 2005 revision also allows those reviewing security clearances broader latitude in rejecting candidates without citing a specific violation of the guidelines.
Under the section "Personal Conduct," Hadley added the following.
"Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include: credible adverse information that is not explicitly covered under any other guideline and may not be sufficient by itself for an adverse determination, but which, when combined with all available information supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the person may not properly safeguard protected information."
The section also adds "deliberately providing false or misleading information" to an employer "or other characteristics indicating that the person may not properly safeguard protected information" as grounds for denial.
Further changes to a second section of the document suggest that the decision to broaden the ability of the government to restrict access to classified information was deliberate. The section "Psychological Conditions" suggests individuals could be rejected for undefined adverse "behavior."
"Behavior that casts doubt on an individual's judgment... that is not covered under any other guideline" is now a condition that could render an individual unfit for approval.
Hadley's revision does, however, remove a vague line in the 1997 document which suggests that "reliable, unfavorable information" from neighbors or coworkers could torpedo an individual's chance for clearances.
Leaks and the media
Not surprisingly, Hadley's revision places far greater emphasis on protecting classified information than its predecessor. The 2005 version significantly expands on the ability for the government to disqualify or revoke clearances based on the improper handling of secrets.
Where the 1995 version had one item under "conditions that could raise a security concern" surrounding security violations, the 2005 version has nine. Many of these items deal with recent advances in computer technology.
Some, however, may raise flags among those already concerned about the ability of the government to keep information from the media. Individuals can now be denied clearances for "deliberate or negligent disclosure of classified or other protected information to unauthorized persons, including but not limited to personal or business contacts, to the media, or to persons present at seminars, meetings, or conferences."
Individuals can also be denied access to classified information for prying.
Hadley adds "inappropriate efforts to obtain or view classified or other protected information outside one's need to know" to a list of potentially disqualifying factors. Also added: "Viewing or downloading information from a secure information when the information is beyond the individual's need to know."
Sexual 'behavior'
The 2005 guidelines also allow the government greater ability to use sexual orientation against applicants.
Whereas the 1997 revision declared that sexual orientation "may not be used" as a basis for disqualifying applicants, Hadley's revisions declare that clearances cannot be denied "solely on the basis of the sexual orientation of the individual."
The 2005 guidelines also add a curious revision under the "Sexual Behavior" section. While the 1995 version said adverse sexual behavior could be eliminated from consideration if it were "not recent," the 2005 version expands this, saying "the sexual behavior happened so long ago, so infrequently, and under such unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur."
Criminal conduct revisions
Another striking change in Hadley's revision is the removal of the word "acquittal" from a list of mitigating factors in considering whether clearances should be granted. The 2005 document removes the word "acquittal" without explanation or replacement.
The Hadley revision also adds discharge from the military under "dishonorable conditions" to a list of conditions that could warrant denial. While the intent cannot be divined, it's worth noting that engaging in homosexual conduct is grounds for a dishonorable discharge from the U.S. military.
Also of note: The abuse of prescription drugs after a "prolonged illness," once ended, can now be used a mitigating factor in determining whether an individual is granted clearances.
2005 Hadley version
1997 version
Muriel Kane provided research for this article.
No comments
Originally published on Monday March 13, 2006.
-------------------------------------------------
Anyone think we have swung to far to the right yet ??
Regards ...
EosJupitor
If lack of cander includes being required to give a perverted polygrapher young teenage girl's bra sizes (as if Onesimus actually knew) then we have a perverted administration. I am a conservative Republican, or have been, but I agree it has gone to far. Giving one person, the polygrapher, that much power is wrong, wrong, wrong. There should be, AT LEAST, a three qualified member board to decide the fate of another. A failed government applicant polygraph record that follows him, preventing his employment in all other LE agencies, should be classified as criminal gang activity.
A disturbing news story somewhat related to this thread.
The Scared Samaritan (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190586,00.html)