They normally give the counter-intelligence (CI) poly
every 5 years, but can give the dreaded life-style,
at any time. If you fail the polys, you are gone, at the
CIA (NSA would transfer you to the motor pool, until
you quit). Relatives, with non-US citizenship , for NSA
and CIA, are clearance killers. If I were you, I would
stay put, and get a DoD TS, for better job security...
To all Concerned;
Looks like they nailed a CIA employee for talking to reporters. Guess she failed her polygraph ... must not have been to this website, poor SOB, they are going to really do her in. Thumbscrews to go !!!
Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12423825/
Text:
----------------------------------------------
NBC: CIA officer fired after admitting leak
Officer allegedly failed polygraph, admitted giving reporter information
By Robert Windrem and Andrea Mitchell
NBC News
Updated: 7:41 p.m. ET April 21, 2006
WASHINGTON - In a rare occurrence, the CIA fired an officer who acknowledged giving classified information to a reporter, NBC News learned Friday.
The officer flunked a polygraph exam before being fired on Thursday and is now under investigation by the Justice Department, NBC has learned.
Intelligence sources tell NBC News the accused officer, Mary McCarthy, worked in the CIA's inspector general's office and had worked for the National Security Council under the Clinton and and George W. Bush administrations. The leak pertained to stories on the CIA's rumored secret prisons in Eastern Europe, sources told NBC. The information was allegedly provided to Dana Priest of the Washington Post, who wrote about CIA prisons in November and was awarded a Pulitzer Prize on Monday for her reporting.
Sources said the CIA believes McCarthy had more than a dozen unauthorized contacts with Priest. Information about subjects other than the prisons may have been leaked as well.
The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the firing.
CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Millerwise confirmed the dismissal. Millerwise said she was unsure whether there had ever been a firing before at the agency for leaking to the media.
Citing the Privacy Act, the CIA would not provide any details about the officer's identity or assignments.
All CIA employees are required to sign a secrecy agreement upon being hired stating they are prohibited from discussing classified information with anyone not cleared to receive the material.
Before going public with her name, NBC News reached McCarthy's husband, Michael. He said he could not confirm that his wife had been fired from her career post. He declined further comment.
Priest said she could not comment on the firing, which she said she learned about from NBC News.
The Washington Post report caused an international uproar, and government officials have said it did significant damage to relationships between the U.S. and allied intelligence agencies.
CIA Director Porter Goss told the Senate in February that leaks to the media had damaged national security. Subsequently, Goss ordered an internal investigation on leaks involving classified security data.
The probe led to the fired CIA officer, sources told NBC.
This leak is not linked to the recent scandal in the CIA involving undercover agent Valerie Plame's identity's being revealed, NBC reported.
Separately, the Justice Department is investigating New York Times stories about the National Security Agency's domestic warrantless eavesdropping. Times reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau won a Pulitzer on Monday for their reporting on the issue.
The NSA and other agencies had requested the probe, sources told NBC.
------------------------------------
enjoy !!
Regards ....
Quote from: EosJupiter on Apr 22, 2006, 12:12 AMTo all Concerned;
Looks like they nailed a CIA employee for talking to reporters. Guess she failed her polygraph ... must not have been to this website, poor SOB, they are going to really do her in. Thumbscrews to go !!!
Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12423825/
Eos,
Your position regarding this unfortunate incident, though not unexpected, is very troubling to me.
IF guilty, then the bottom line truth is that Mary McCarthy was a highly placed CIA official who was entrusted with this nations deepest secrets. What she has apparently done with that solemn covenant was to egregiously place her own interests beyond those of her countrymen and deliberately with forethought, sell out her nation for the price of a newspaper.
Regarding what if any involvement the CIA polygraph program had in flushing this apparent spy, we really don't yet know. However, I believe one of the following three situations is what transpired:
1. Polygraph had absolutely no involvement in this case. If that is what comes out in the end, then there is no controversy here. Nothing for Antipolygraph.org to talk about.
2. She was administered a polygraph examination as a suspect in an investigation. She failed the examination and provided some or all of the information that we are all now reading about. If this is the case, then chalk one up for specific issue polygraph testing, because it is clearly a key factor in the resolution of a major counterintelligence investigation.
3. She was administered a routine periodic screening polygraph examination, failed the test, and as a result confessed to deliberately providing highly classified information to a newspaper reporter and therefore knowingly releasing it to our enemies. If this is what actually happened here, then the so-called "antipolygraph movement" has just taken an artillery round square in the chest.
Having said all that, what really worries me is not what Ms. McCarthy has or has not done. The government/courts will sort that out. What really troubles me is statements like the one that Eos Jupiter made:
"...Looks like they nailed a CIA employee for talking to reporters. Guess she failed her polygraph ... must not have been to this website, poor SOB..."
Clearly, Mr. Eos Jupiter, Mr. Maschke, and others on this site would have been much happier if Ms. McCarthy had somehow used the dribble hawked on this site to somehow effect her polygraph examination, and therefore go on giving away classified information to our enemies during a time of war...
Eos even calls this spy a "Poor SOB," instead of what she actually is. He seems to feel sorry for her. Never mind the fact that this woman has probably crippled our nation's ability to fight one of the most miserable battles we have ever had to endure. What is more important to Eos and others on this site is not that she is a spy, but that she might be a "victim of polygraph."
Very Interesting...
Hey guys, here's something to think about: Have you considered the possibility that Ms. McCarthy had in fact visited this site, downloaded TLBTLD, and was caught in a feeble attempt to employ the "countermeasures" you hawk so aggressively?
Just something to think about...
Regards,
Nonombre 8)
Quote from: nonombre on Apr 22, 2006, 01:53 PM
Hey guys, here's something to think about: Have you considered the possibility that Ms. McCarthy had in fact visited this site, downloaded TLBTLD, and was caught in a feeble attempt to employ the "countermeasures" you hawk so aggressively?
From time.com:
"Through the course of these investigations, a CIA officer acknowledged having unauthorized discussions with reporters "
Since the first countermeasure taught is "MAKE NO ADMISSIONS!" and it appears she did confess it is unlikely she visited this site.
Also it appears this was a specific issue polygraph not the routine 5 year screening:
"Goss spokeswoman Jennifer Millerwise Dyck would not discuss details but said the unauthorized disclosure was discovered in the course of "thorough internal investigations" that examined which CIA officers might have had access to classified information that had appeared in the news media."
nonombre,
The CIA has been kidnapping (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-masri18dec18,0,3748543.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions), disappearing (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/01/AR2005110101644.html), torturing (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=2718.msg19082#msg19082), and sometimes killing (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=2695.msg18952#msg18952) people in violation of U.S. and international law. The secret prisons about which Dana Priest of the Washington Post reported (at least in part based on information provided by Mary McCarthy) existed for one primary purpose: to skirt U.S. and international law.
I agree with Daniel Ellsberg (http://www.ellsberg.net/truthtellingproject.html) that there are times when unauthorized truth-telling becomes a patriotic duty.
Quote from: nonombre on Apr 22, 2006, 01:53 PM
IF guilty, then the bottom line truth is that Mary McCarthy was a highly placed CIA official who was entrusted with this nations deepest secrets. What she has apparently done with that solemn covenant was to egregiously place her own interests beyond those of her countrymen and deliberately with forethought, sell out her nation for the price of a newspaper.
Indeed, if true Mary violated the law, plain and simple.
Quote
...She was administered a polygraph examination as a suspect in an investigation. She failed the examination and provided some or all of the information that we are all now reading about. If this is the case, then chalk one up for specific issue polygraph testing, because it is clearly a key factor in the resolution of a major counterintelligence investigation.
This is most likely the case. Like the NSA tapping and Plame case, this had also been referred to DoJ according to reports. It was considered a serious and damaging leak. Since the leaks would have involved contact with WaPo's Dana, peripheral (non-public) elements of this crime would be quite specific and possibly even lend themselves to the scientifically valid GKT. In any case the associated interrogation was obviously successful.
Marty
As has been discussed and suggested, the possibilities are quite varied for the role (ranging from no role to useful tool to cover for other means) of and/or any significance of a polygraph exam(s) in this matter. I will be very interested to see how eagerly and aggressively a criminal indictment and prosecution are pursued. Polygraph's role could affect both and be elucidated by both.
If Ms. McCarthy leaked information from a compartmentalized information area, perhaps the best proof of such would be a carefully constructed concealed information test given to Ms. Priest of the Washington Post-an exam focusing on details connected (but different from) those made public by Ms. Priest. Next best would be a concealed information test given to Ms. McCarthy about the details of the logistics of any contact (calls/meetings/etc) with Ms. Priest which could be verified by Ms. Priest (if necessary) through limited immunity offered to Ms. Priest from any prosecution.
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Apr 22, 2006, 02:46 PMnonombre,
The CIA has been kidnapping (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-masri18dec18,0,3748543.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions), disappearing (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/01/AR2005110101644.html), torturing (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=2718.msg19082#msg19082), and sometimes killing (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=2695.msg18952#msg18952) people in violation of U.S. and international law. The secret prisons about which Dana Priest of the Washington Post reported (at least in part based on information provided by Mary McCarthy) existed for one primary purpose: to skirt U.S. and international law.
I agree with Daniel Ellsberg (http://www.ellsberg.net/truthtellingproject.html) that there are times when unauthorized truth-telling becomes a patriotic duty.
Then why did it take a polygraph examination for this lady to tell the truth? If she was such a "Patriot," then WHY didn't she have the GUTS to go public ???
Remember "Deep Throat?" The "patriot" who outed the Nixon administration? Well it turned out in the end that he did it because he was passed over for a promotion.
Another "Patriot" in action?
Mr. Maschke, your flavor of "patriots" I can live without.
Regards,
Nonombre
Quote from: nonombre on Apr 22, 2006, 04:50 PM
Then why did it take a polygraph examination for this lady to tell the truth? If she was such a "Patriot," then WHY didn't she have the GUTS to go public ???
Let's hope the "assets" the CIA maintains don't get the "GUTS" to disclose their association.
Context is important.
A notable example is a Mr. F. Mr. F. confessed to standing by while a man was tortured (for revenge, not information). He was repeatedly beaten then roasted while alive until he finally succumbed from the fire. Mr. F. was armed at the time and could have interceded however he felt disinclined.
Mr. F. also noted that he was able to obtain information by lining men from a village against a wall and informing them he would shoot them right there unless they gave him the info he needed. It worked.
Mr. F. was the chief U.S. prosecutor at the Nuremberg War Trials and his anecdotes are from WWII. He is now a foremost expert in international law. The man roasted was an S.S. officer, the roasters, former inmates. The stories are from a WaPo interview.
www.benferencz.org
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/21/AR2005072101680.html
Context is important.
Marty
God only knows what they did to her in the interrogation to force an admission. I know a lump of metal and wires wouldn't be enough to get me to talk. Regardless of whether she is guilty or not...I hope they didn't force her to stay awake for weeks on end torturing her.
If the people that hid the prisons were interrogating her...I don't doubt she has already been punished sufficiently. :-/
I don't really have a strong opinion either way since too many facts are missing. But I just can't figure out how a seasoned, life-long intelligence person fails a polygraph test and admits everything.
Quote from: Tarlain on Apr 22, 2006, 08:42 PMBut I just can't figure out how a seasoned, life-long intelligence person fails a polygraph test and admits everything.
My sentiments exactly. Perhaps they already had a strong case against her and confronted her with it during the interrogation?
Quote from: nonombre on Apr 22, 2006, 01:53 PM
Eos,
Your position regarding this unfortunate incident, though not unexpected, is very troubling to me.
IF guilty, then the bottom line truth is that Mary McCarthy was a highly placed CIA official who was entrusted with this nations deepest secrets. What she has apparently done with that solemn covenant was to egregiously place her own interests beyond those of her countrymen and deliberately with forethought, sell out her nation for the price of a newspaper.
Regarding what if any involvement the CIA polygraph program had in flushing this apparent spy, we really don't yet know. However, I believe one of the following three situations is what transpired:
1. Polygraph had absolutely no involvement in this case. If that is what comes out in the end, then there is no controversy here. Nothing for Antipolygraph.org to talk about.
2. She was administered a polygraph examination as a suspect in an investigation. She failed the examination and provided some or all of the information that we are all now reading about. If this is the case, then chalk one up for specific issue polygraph testing, because it is clearly a key factor in the resolution of a major counterintelligence investigation.
3. She was administered a routine periodic screening polygraph examination, failed the test, and as a result confessed to deliberately providing highly classified information to a newspaper reporter and therefore knowingly releasing it to our enemies. If this is what actually happened here, then the so-called "antipolygraph movement" has just taken an artillery round square in the chest.
Having said all that, what really worries me is not what Ms. McCarthy has or has not done. The government/courts will sort that out. What really troubles me is statements like the one that Eos Jupiter made:
"...Looks like they nailed a CIA employee for talking to reporters. Guess she failed her polygraph ... must not have been to this website, poor SOB..."
Clearly, Mr. Eos Jupiter, Mr. Maschke, and others on this site would have been much happier if Ms. McCarthy had somehow used the dribble hawked on this site to somehow effect her polygraph examination, and therefore go on giving away classified information to our enemies during a time of war...
Eos even calls this spy a "Poor SOB," instead of what she actually is. He seems to feel sorry for her. Never mind the fact that this woman has probably crippled our nation's ability to fight one of the most miserable battles we have ever had to endure. What is more important to Eos and others on this site is not that she is a spy, but that she might be a "victim of polygraph."
Very Interesting...
Hey guys, here's something to think about: Have you considered the possibility that Ms. McCarthy had in fact visited this site, downloaded TLBTLD, and was caught in a feeble attempt to employ the "countermeasures" you hawk so aggressively?
Just something to think about...
Regards,
Nonombre 8)
NoNombre,
Whats interesting to point out here is that yes she violated her trust but she did it in my opinion from conscience. Anyone of conscience and humanity would not just sit by and watch flagrant violations of human rights. It is my opinion and I would not have just sit by either. Wrong is wrong, even in war time. As a retired officer I had a strict code about following unlawful orders or actions. And these prisons and the actions being done by these patriotic public servants to other humans is wrong. So do spare me the patriotic rhetoric about supporting these types of activity. For the record I do not support anything where torture. intimidation, or violence is condoned for the greater good. The end never justifies the means. Our government touts its human rights record, but again this administration see no point in following its own policies. If we are not a nation of law, then we are morally and legally bankrupt.
Be as disturbed as you want, but if I sit on her jury there is no way I would find her guilty. What she did will remain in my opinion a public service by outing illegal activities by a goverment that more and more heads towards a police state.
Regards
The end always justifies the means to a polygraph person. I have already lost count of how many times Nonombre has talked about the results of polygraph to excuse its hideous shortcomings.
Quote from: EosJupiter on Apr 22, 2006, 10:42 PM
NoNombre,
Whats interesting to point out here is that yes she violated her trust but she did it in my opinion from conscience. Anyone of conscience and humanity would not just sit by and watch flagrant violations of human rights. It is my opinion and I would not have just sit by either. Wrong is wrong, even in war time. As a retired officer I had a strict code about following unlawful orders or actions. And these prisons and the actions being done by these patriotic public servants to other humans is wrong. So do spare me the patriotic rhetoric about supporting these types of activity. For the record I do not support anything where torture. intimidation, or violence is condoned for the greater good. The end never justifies the means. Our government touts its human rights record, but again this administration see no point in following its own policies. If we are not a nation of law, then we are morally and legally bankrupt.
Be as disturbed as you want, but if I sit on her jury there is no way I would find her guilty. What she did will remain in my opinion a public service by outing illegal activities by a goverment that more and more heads towards a police state.
Regards
Ah yes, she was so brave that she hid in her office and had to be flushed out with a polygraph. A perfect role model for the rest of us...
As always, my regards,
Nonombre
Quote from: nonombre on Apr 22, 2006, 01:53 PM
Regarding what if any involvement the CIA polygraph program had in flushing this apparent spy, we really don't yet know.
Quote from: nonombre on Apr 22, 2006, 11:52 PM
Ah yes, she was so brave that she hid in her office and had to be flushed out with a polygraph. A perfect role model for the rest of us...
As always, my regards,
Nonombre
You start this thread claiming that you don't know what the polygraph did. Now you are saying the polygraph flushed her out...
Make up your mind! Or at least try to stay objective and keep your story the same for more than one day.
Quote from: nonombre on Apr 22, 2006, 11:52 PM
Ah yes, she was so brave that she hid in her office and had to be flushed out with a polygraph. A perfect role model for the rest of us...
As always, my regards,
Nonombre
NoNombre,
What needs to be explained here is the US is a signatore of the UN Human Rights Accords. We pledged to abide by the rules of fair treatment for all humans, in all endeavors. This includes wars ... you should read the accords. Is it any wonder why so many countries do not trust us, when we violate our own agreements. The CIA on purpose made these prisons existence classified to hide there existence. As bad as the leak may be, this egregious violation of signed accords is worse. Two wrongs never make a right, but at what point to you put an end to law breaking. I stand by the point that if she did leak it, it was a choice driven by conscience.
Regards
Quote from: EosJupiter on Apr 23, 2006, 03:03 AM
NoNombre,
What needs to be explained here is the US is a signatore of the UN Human Rights Accords. We pledged to abide by the rules of fair treatment for all humans, in all endeavors. This includes wars ... you should read the accords. Is it any wonder why so many countries do not trust us, when we violate our own agreements. The CIA on purpose made these prisons existence classified to hide there existence. As bad as the leak may be, this egregious violation of signed accords is worse. Two wrongs never make a right, but at what point to you put an end to law breaking. I stand by the point that if she did leak it, it was a choice driven by conscience.
Regards
Eos,
We are just going to have to disagree on this one. I still believe that if she was truly driven by conscience, there were other ways she could have come out with this information.
As an example, I find myself having to pay Dr. Richardson a compliment here. He felt so strongly about the use of polygraph in pre-employment screening, he came out publicly against it. He put himself on the line and risked quite a bit. Dr. Richardson did not "leak" anything. He did not have to be "flushed out."
I will always disagree with Dr. Richardson's position on the issue of pre-employment screening, but I respect the fact he stood up to the plate with his beliefs.
In contrast, this woman is at best a "big mouth," and at worst a coward. I repeat my assertion she is nothing to emulate.
Regards,
Nonombre
It's a shame that it was a polygraph that "caught" her. This only lends additional, undeserved credibility to Wonder Woman's Lasso. I've said it before, and I'll say it again - the lie detector has some interrogative utility in criminal settings (where, an investigation will already have taken place and someone is actually suspect of something), but as a pre-employment screening tool, its use is completely absurd.
As for the actual merits of the Mary McCarthy case, I can only assume she brought it upon herself. I think leaking classified information isn't necessarily the best way to get the word out on gov't abuses. If she really wanted to make a difference, she would've outted herself, resigned, and went straight to the press - rather than surreptitiously leak info, get caught, and actually get canned for it. Still, everyone has to be guided by their own situation and moral compass, and clearly she thought this was the way to go.
Nonombre,
You write in part:
Quote...As an example, I find myself having to pay Dr. Richardson a compliment here. He felt so strongly about the use of polygraph in pre-employment screening, he came out publicly against it. He put himself on the line and risked quite a bit. Dr. Richardson did not "leak" anything. He did not have to be "flushed out."
I will always disagree with Dr. Richardson's position on the issue of pre-employment screening, but I respect the fact he stood up to the plate with his beliefs.
I appreciate the compliment and your appreciation of the risks of publicly expressing one's convictions from a minority/non-bureaucratic position. That having been said, I can see reasons beyond a personal self-defensive posture for releasing information and expressing opinions in a more covert manner than the testifying-before-Congress route that I pursued. Chief amongst these reasons would be involvement in an on-going matter in which information becomes available over a period of time. If one wants access to continued information, one cannot do as I did. I felt that I had all the information I needed to offer the commentary that was offered, I had seen and had been approached by large numbers of people credibly representing themselves as victims of the process, and I felt I had little choice in the matter. I do not know enough about either Ms. McCarthy's actions or motivations to comment authoritatively, but I do see a possibility of her covert (leaking) dissemination of information being both useful and more considered than mere personal protection. The "Deep Throat" scenario you previously mentioned is an excellent example of this sort of situation. Various issues that were not known all at once or in advance where "leaked" over a period of time as they became available through continued investigation.
Perhaps of interest and not even known by former colleagues in the FBI is that as a result of that testimony and other similar written and oral expressions, a former Unit Chief of the FBI's Polygraph Unit (the entity which operationally controls polygraph practice in the FBI) has since told me he now (not formerly) believes me to right about the issue, Louis Freeh (former Director of the FBI) before the end of his tenure had instructed his National Press Office to have me give interviews with the media expressing my viewpoints about polygraphy, and at least one FBI polygrapher (through both his own recognition/concerns and familiarity with my actions) has since left the FBI's polygraph program. As you may point out, these, in and of themselves, are small victories in the face of an increased program since my retirement, but I have hope--FBI agent polygraphers are neither stupid nor cowards. I do believe the days of polygraph screening are numbered within the Bureau.
Quote from: nonombre on Apr 23, 2006, 11:35 AM
Eos,
We are just going to have to disagree on this one. I still believe that if she was truly driven by conscience, there were other ways she could have come out with this information.
As an example, I find myself having to pay Dr. Richardson a compliment here. He felt so strongly about the use of polygraph in pre-employment screening, he came out publicly against it. He put himself on the line and risked quite a bit. Dr. Richardson did not "leak" anything. He did not have to be "flushed out."
I will always disagree with Dr. Richardson's position on the issue of pre-employment screening, but I respect the fact he stood up to the plate with his beliefs.
In contrast, this woman is at best a "big mouth," and at worst a coward. I repeat my assertion she is nothing to emulate.
Regards,
Nonombre
NoNombre,
Personally I would not have done it that way either, I would have resigned, and brought it before a congressional committee that was cleared to hear the testimony. But I also would not have been unprepared for the witch hunt to follow. She chose badly in how she handled it. Emulation would not be the cards. And as we are on opposite sides of the the polygraph issue, I believe I could have beat those polygraphs and walked away clean. That said we shall see how this plays out.
Regards ...
I must say it is very amusing and gratifying to sit back and see all of you anti poly folks "spinning" like crazy. I wish you coud see how foolish you come across in trying to defend this traitor. You are all making excuses for a criminal. I hope she is punished to the full extent of the law. God knows what else she revealed. We will probably never know but what if she was caught using counter measures. How interesting. Kudos to the CIA polygraphers. Job well done on behalf of all patriotic Americans.
I know all the polygrapher's needles are all pointing straight up after this story was released. However, please keep in mind this was a specific issue polygraph given to a presumably limited number of people. I don't think anyone has ever argued that the polygraph can't be used as an interrogation tool.
I'd be curious to know how many false positives also occurred in the course of this investigation.
Retcopper,
Of course, the government always tells us the truth about the circumstances of its investigations! Especially the polygraphers who lie for a living!
As in, we all know that Wen Ho Lee "flunked" his polygraph: http://www.slate.com/id/1006064
Mmmm hmmm.
And of course, those trusty CIA polygraphers readily unmasked Aldrich Ames with their little magic machine:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/polygraph/ames.html
It's funny -- they tell us she flunked the poly, but then go on to say, "Oh, we can't give any other details because of the privacy act."
Sounds like the CIA is covering its ass, using some supposed polygraph failure to say, see, if the machine says it, it must be true.
I'm now wondering if, as it has been reported, this latest round of CIA polygraphs was "massive," then how many innocent employees had false positives and now have their careers thrashed? Do you trust the CIA to reveal those figures? And how about the senior-level CIA employees who were polygraphed -- when do we get to see the results of their tests?
I'm sure the CIA will be very forthcoming.
I think it should rub you the wrong way -- or at least spark your curiousity -- that hers are the only results they are discussing.
But then again, you never sounded like a very intellectually curious man, other than your curious position in support of the polygraph.
Tool, schmool. She flunked the test and fessed up.
Fessed, smchessed........
Yes, she confessed after being given a specific issue polygraph in conjunction with a thourough investigation. She isn't the first person to to be discovered this way.
Hardly a victory for the use of pre-employment screening polygraphs.
Quote from: Mr. Mystery on Apr 24, 2006, 04:09 PMFessed, smchessed........
Yes, she confessed after being given a specific issue polygraph in conjunction with a thourough investigation. She isn't the first person to to be discovered this way.
Hardly a victory for the use of pre-employment screening polygraphs.
Thank you for your total endorsement of specific issue polygraph testing. It is refreshing to hear a true polygraph supporter on this site!
Thanks Again!
Nonombre :D
Quote from: nonombre on Apr 24, 2006, 09:47 PM
Thank you for your total endorsement of specific issue polygraph testing. It is refreshing to hear a true polygraph supporter on this site!
Thanks Again!
Nonombre :D
Nonombre - your passive/aggressive approach is tiresome and an all-too-convenient out whenever an opportunity for real debate exists.
Many people here, as I have said before, can agree that a polygraph, like a truncheon, can be
a very effective interrogative tool. That's when 1) an issue exists (no fishing expedition) and 2) the polygraph is guided towards that issue.
As a pre-employment screening tool, however, it is almost completely worthless. The
only conceivable utility in pre-employment screening is to create a sense of camaraderie among those who've "endured" the polygraph. Even this, minimal utility is heavily outweighed by the negative consequences of its use in this respect.
Yes, he is behaving erratic even by the standards of a polygrapher.
Antrella and Mr Mystery"
What don't you get? An investigation is conducted and a polygraph exam is given. The suspect flunks and eventually confesses. What more validity do you want. I agree with you, "she is not the first to be discovered this way ". You can takse solace in the fact that as the polygrah gains more acceptance there will be many, many more "discovered this way". Especially those who use counter measures to try to hide the truth.
Quote from: retcopper on Apr 25, 2006, 11:46 AMAntrella and Mr Mystery"
What don't you get? An investigation is conducted and a polygraph exam is given. The suspect flunks and eventually confesses. What more validity do you want. I agree with you, "she is not the first to be discovered this way ". You can takse solace in the fact that as the polygrah gains more acceptance there will be many, many more "discovered this way". Especially those who use counter measures to try to hide the truth.
Retcopper,
How is this case any more valid than any other? A person was accused of something and, after "failing" a polygraph, she confessed. Or maybe she didn't, depending on which news reports you believe.
If you are going to use this case as proof that the polygraph works then I would like to know what separates it from other cases in which people "failed" their polygraph yet continually maintained their innocence. If the anecdotal evidence in this case is sufficient to prove the polygraph's accuracy then isn't the anecdotal evidence in other cases also sufficient to prove the polygraph's lack of accuracy?
I failed my first pre-employment polygraph exams before passing my fourth. Using the same methodology as you have shown in your post that means my first three were aberrations which provided no real insight into the accuracy or inaccuracy of the polygraph. But the fourth one is "proof" that the polygraph works, right?
If the polygraph actually functioned as a tool to detect deception there would be no such things as false-positives. Perhaps it still wouldn't detect deception 100% of the time, since few tests are accurate to that degree. But if it truly had validity then you would know with 100% accuracy that if a person failed he or she must have been deceptive. As it stands now a "failure" means that the person was deceptive, or was honest and falls into the disputed percentage of false-positive, or they were honest and used CM's improperly, or they were deceptive and used CM's improperly.
The false-positive rate for polygraphs is disputed, of course. Supporters of the polygraph say it is very low, while people like me believe it is very high. I know of no one who asserts that it doesn't exist. And the false-positive rate is what, in my opinion, renders the polygraph worthless as a scientific test.
Sergeant:
I believe there are some examiners who are not as good as others, just like any other profession. Even the medcial profession is rampant with Drs who misread xrays and other tests, etc. I alway extend the benefit of the doubt to the examinee. For example: If after reading the investigative file, pretest interview and applying common sense and courtesy, the test doesn't come out in favor of the examinee I stand back and make a global evaluation of the whole process. Was there something I did wrong or is there peripheral issues that could be affecting the process. If the subject fails and my gut feeling tells me that something might be amiss I go that extra mile for the subject. My conscience will not allow me to do anything other than this. On the flip side, if the subject passes and I still think he did the crime I will make sure that I did everything to the best of my ability. In any case I always try to be fair, courteous and scrupulous.
Sergeant, I am not calling you a liar because you were told you failed your exams but maybe some outside issues regarding the test affected your results. If you were telling the truth and I have no reason to believe you weren't, then it is my opinion the polygrpaher was wrong and not the instrument.
retcopper
I'm not trying to be a wise ass here but, I have been on this website since it's beginning and read polygraphers describe polygrapher's tallents as expert, good and bad. However, I can't remember any who post here as admitting that they are a bad polygrapher. Seems if the examinee fails, it's his fault. HE LIED.
Some questions:
1. Have you ever heard a polygrapher describe himself as a bad polygrapher?
2. Have you ever heard a polygrapher blame a proven false+ on himself instead of the machine?
3. Have you heard of a state polygraphy board pulling a lic. because he/she was a bad polygrapher?
4. People in all other professions get fired. I was fired once because I didn't tell my boss goodby when I went on vacation. THE LITERAL TRUTH. If she had been pretty enough I would have kissed her goodby. She was butt ugly. Why aren't polygraphers fired in proportion to other industries?
5. Are all of you that good or is it the fact that the failed examinee has NO options?
These questions are open to all other polygraphers as well. Please chime in.
Two-block: I'll give a polygrapher's answer.
1. Have you ever heard a polygrapher describe himself as a bad polygrapher?
No bad polygrapher wants to admit he/she is weak/incompetent or suited for this profession, but you can say the same for any profession. That's why there are quality control supervisors who monitor and evaluate an examiner's performance during the mandatory internship, and continue to review their work even after certification. Those who don't perform to standards are not certified; those who are certified and don't maintain the expected level of professionalism are de-certified.
2. Have you ever heard a polygrapher blame a proven false+ on himself instead of the machine?
Not sure what you mean by a "proven false positive"; but on occasions, particularly in those exams that are inconclusive, good examiners replay their exams to determine if they did a proper pretest, obtained satisfactory charts, and tested correct relevant questions; good supervisors ensure that examinees were suitable for testing, both physiologically and emotionally, and generally give the benefit of the doubt to the examinee.
3. Have you heard of a state polygraphy board pulling a lic. because he/she was a bad polygrapher?
I can't speak for state boards, but I can tell you that I've sat on a number of decertification boards that resulted in weak/incompetent examiners being removed from our program.
4. People in all other professions get fired. I was fired once because I didn't tell my boss goodby when I went on vacation. THE LITERAL TRUTH. If she had been pretty enough I would have kissed her goodby. She was butt ugly. Why aren't polygraphers fired in proportion to other industries?
I will take an educated guess and say they are weeded out prior to certification, leaving a smaller percentage of them to be fired later on for unethical behavior/incompetence.
5. Are all of you that good or is it the fact that the failed examinee has NO options?
Probably not, but examinees have the option of insisting on re-testing.
quickfix
Thanks for your answers.
Your post is what I've come to expect from you. You seem to cover every thing that is asked. Are you sure you haven't been on here years ago as Public Servant? I liked that guy. As I remember, we didn't always agree but, we didn't let that wrinkle our noses.
Theres a couple of points on which I need clarification but, not time to get into now. Have to get to work on my projects. Someone else may get to it before I get back.
Two-block: don't know the chap/gal (Public Servant), but I wouldn't impersonate someone else as some would. As an examiner, I feel quite strongly about "policing our own". As you probably figured out, I have little tolerance for incompetent, abusive, and unethical examiners who do nothing to improve an already controversial profession. I also concede that "false positives" do exist, primarily in the screening arena, but sincerly believe that it is not on the massive scale that is portrayed by many on this site, at least not within DoD. If it were, the halls of CIA, NSA, etc, would be pretty empty.
Regards
quickfix
My trip was delayed until next week. Had to order a part first.
I'm not suggesting that you are impersonating Public Servant, but sometimes people drop the original posting names and pick another for some reason. It was just that you both have similar writings.
You touched on one of the things that I was going to ask you about.
It's quite hard for me to believe that a large percentage of poster's reports of abusive polygraphers are not telling the truth. Their stories are too much alike. Just today Glendale 77 reported, on Share Your Polygraph Experiences, about his abusive polygrapher. This makes my blood boil. If he fails, what recoarse does he have except a lawsuit? It appears that his was a local PD and I'll bet his state's poly board would white wash it. This is why I would like retcopper and other PD polygraphers to answer my questions. Evidently these guys don't have to answer to an unbiased quality control board.
The polygraph industry should require that all test, criminal and employment, be audio/vidio taped and a copy, unredacted, be made available to examinees who requests it. Don't you think this would inhance polygraph's position? Why is it that polygraphers will not release charts and tapes on request? FOIA only applies to federal intities. Unlike polygraphers, I don't mind giving a person the reason why I didn't hire him and I don't make the decision on my own. I have a foreman that helps make that decision.
Twoblock:
1. I have to say no to this question but I did know some examiners who stopped doing polygraphs because of the stress associated with the job. Maybe the stress was caused by the fact that they didnt think they were good examiners and were conscientious so they quit being examiners. With human nature being what it is no one likes to admit publicly that they are bad at what
they do.
2
. Not a fasle pos. but I blamed myself for a few false negs. When these were disovered I went back and tried to be objective as possible.I found some instances where I prbably made some errors or should have done things differently.
3. No but it doesnt mean that it doesn't.
4. You discriminate. BUtt ugly bosses need some loving too. I dont know if there ever was study done to confirm your statement but I will say that in my dept if someone behaved inappropriately they would be disciplined and or removed as examiners. This would be done after a thorough investigation of the complaint.
5. Some are better than others.
retcopper
Thanks for your answers.
I guess you're right. I do discriminate but, man, she was so bucktoothed she could eat corn off the cobb through a rail fence.
quickfix and retcopper
I, too, have a very low tolerance for incompetence. Incompetence is costly in every way. I am incompentent at operating heavy equipment and I don't yell and scream at people to cover it up. Therefore, I stay away from it except to help maintain it. My expertise starts when the ore hits the feeder hopper. I hire good operators. To me, the polygrapher's screaming and name calling at examinees is nothing more than covering up his/her incompetencies.
Twoblock:
No argument here. The guy should be fired if he did all that he is accused of doing.
Quote from: Twoblock on Apr 26, 2006, 07:10 AMquickfix
My trip was delayed until next week. Had to order a part first.
I'm not suggesting that you are impersonating Public Servant, but sometimes people drop the original posting names and pick another for some reason. It was just that you both have similar writings.
You touched on one of the things that I was going to ask you about.
It's quite hard for me to believe that a large percentage of poster's reports of abusive polygraphers are not telling the truth. Their stories are too much alike. Just today Glendale 77 reported, on Share Your Polygraph Experiences, about his abusive polygrapher. This makes my blood boil. If he fails, what recoarse does he have except a lawsuit? It appears that his was a local PD and I'll bet his state's poly board would white wash it. This is why I would like retcopper and other PD polygraphers to answer my questions. Evidently these guys don't have to answer to an unbiased quality control board.
The polygraph industry should require that all test, criminal and employment, be audio/vidio taped and a copy, unredacted, be made available to examinees who requests it. Don't you think this would inhance polygraph's position? Why is it that polygraphers will not release charts and tapes on request? FOIA only applies to federal intities. Unlike polygraphers, I don't mind giving a person the reason why I didn't hire him and I don't make the decision on my own. I have a foreman that helps make that decision.
Two-block: I have to agree with you that all polys should be audio and/or video recorded (video is much better, you can see if the examiner was acting in an intimidating manner). I also feel if the exam is recorded, it would significantly decrease the types of behavior reported by Glendale777 earlier; examiners, by nature, are trained to interrogate, however, during pre-employment screening, the examinee is NOT accused or suspected of any wrongdoing, therefore, a different approach to testing is a must. I suppose that because of the large numbers of pre-employment polys being conducted at the state and local level, not a lot of priority is placed in purchasing audio/video equipment, tapes, etc because it is a budgetary consideration. Retcopper is better equipped to answer that one.
P.S. the last time someone insulted my mother was 40 years ago when I was told my mother wears combat boots. They were right; she was an Army WAC.
Regards
Quickfix
Most every PD I know utilizes photo/audio equipment with their poly exams. The price is minimal compared to the obvious value. Not only does it keep the examiners on their toes but it aslo protects them from false claims.
Retcopper,
How quaint. Here I thought it was the lie detector, not "photo/audio equipment," that was supposed to protect us all from "false claims."
How little trust you show in your own craft.
And on the subject of spelling, you are an apologist for mediocrity, which I believe also shows in your "work."
Quote from: allegedliar on Apr 27, 2006, 05:49 PMRetcopper,
How quaint. Here I thought it was the lie detector, not "photo/audio equipment," that was supposed to protect us all from "false claims."
How little trust you show in your own craft.
And on the subject of spelling, you are an apologist for mediocrity, which I believe also shows in your "work."
Allegedliar,
The reason for recording polygraph interrogations in their entirety is to create an objective record of what was said and done. This is something that is desireable whether or not a polygraph is used during the interrogation.
Retcopper's support for recording interrogations does not suggest any lack of trust in the polygraph on his part. Rather, it suggests a simple understanding that sometimes, people lie about, mischaracterize, or simply misremember what was said during an interrogation. Recording removes doubt, and I'm glad to see that Retcopper and some of the other polygraphers who post here endorse the practice. Would that the FBI were so enlightened.
George, I understand your point, but I am just cynically playing devil's advocate for the polygraphers. There seems to be an inherent contradiction in their position.
Were a polygrapher subjected to supposedly false claims, why would he or she not then be willing to again rely on the polygraph to dispute such claims, instead of turning to audio / visual recording equipment?
After all, I thought the polygraph was supposed to be the definitive, objective technical means they relied upon to detect lies in the first place. If a polygraph did what it is purported to do, there would then be no need for audio or video recorders.
The polygraphers' support for the use of alternative technical means in their sessions seems to undermine the purported omniscience and effectiveness of the polygraph.
But I suppose that if allegations of lies about a polygrapher's conduct in a polygraph session were followed up by yet even more polygraph sessions to settle those charges, we would all be caught up in a vicious circle that really would show the insanity of the polygraph.
Of course, the polygraph "professionals" wouldn't want that. I just think their use of audio or video recordings in sessions shows them to be hypocrites and that their magical machine cannot be relied upon to show us the truth.
quickfix and retcopper
One more question to be answered and I'll let this subject go.
Can you give a reason why an examinee can't get a copy of his tapes and charts even when the examinee offers to withstand the cost of reproduction? Seems to me, if the popygrapher is confident that he made the right call on the exam, he shouldn't have anything to hide. If the examinee feels/knows that he told the truth to all questions and still failed, he should have the right to further review by an outside/independant quality control system. It's called "checks and balancies" in which I firmly believe. Wouldn't this give the polygraph industry a little more validity? I can't recall any other industry that has such a closed circuit system.
Two-block:
As far as the federal government goes, an individual can request anything related to him/her under a FOIA request. Cost is minimal, and often fee-free. Individuals do request, and receive, copies of their polygraph reports on a routine basis. The tapes and charts are generally not available after about 90 days, as they are not required to be maintained beyond that. Tapes are degaussed and reused for future exams. FOIA regs also contain a number of provisions under which certain information is exempt from release and disclosure. Not sure if tapes/charts fall under any of those exemptions. Don't know the guidelines in the LE world.
Quote from: allegedliar on Apr 27, 2006, 07:15 PMGeorge, I understand your point, but I am just cynically playing devil's advocate for the polygraphers. There seems to be an inherent contradiction in their position.
Were a polygrapher subjected to supposedly false claims, why would he or she not then be willing to again rely on the polygraph to dispute such claims, instead of turning to audio / visual recording equipment?
After all, I thought the polygraph was supposed to be the definitive, objective technical means they relied upon to detect lies in the first place. If a polygraph did what it is purported to do, there would then be no need for audio or video recorders.
The polygraphers' support for the use of alternative technical means in their sessions seems to undermine the purported omniscience and effectiveness of the polygraph.
But I suppose that if allegations of lies about a polygrapher's conduct in a polygraph session were followed up by yet even more polygraph sessions to settle those charges, we would all be caught up in a vicious circle that really would show the insanity of the polygraph.
Of course, the polygraph "professionals" wouldn't want that. I just think their use of audio or video recordings in sessions shows them to be hypocrites and that their magical machine cannot be relied upon to show us the truth.
Not intending to cut ahead of George, I'd like to cite two real-life incidents where the video tapes played a significant role. In one instance, an examiner was reported by someone as behaving in an unethical manner. The video tapes substantiated the allegation. An additional review of past exam videos going back three months further revealed the examiner had been conducting the same unethical practice in virtually every exam. The examiner's certification was revoked, and
(s)he was fired.
In another instance, a female examinee provided a sworn statement alledging that the examiner required her to remove her blouse and brassiere so that he could properly attach the pneumograph tubes. When the tape showed that no such conduct occurred, her civil service employment was promptly terminated.
Twoblock:
You are absolutley correct. An examinee should be able to obtain copies of their charts and video/audio tapes. I don't have a problem with it and it seems to me that every agency should make them available at the examinees request..
Allegedliar:
As I stated before I strongly believe in the use of video/audio recordings of all poly sessions to back up any claims of misconduct on the part of examinee or examiner. You don't believe in the accuracy of the polygraph and I respect that. But poly and anti poly folks will amost always agree on the evidence provided by the tapes.
Dear retcopper,
I have long agreed that videotaping(to include audio) can be beneficial to the examiner and examinee. Such recording can be done economically (DVD burning camaras are not expensive, four hours of high quality recording can be done on one CD and physical storage should not be an issue). Putting aside polygraph validity, this should be a no-brainer which could settle many a contested exam.
Whether or not the exam should exist in the first place, well, we will let that to the other posts.
Regards.
Fairchance:
You're right. The cost is minimal. I can't believe any agency would not utilize the tapes.
Have a good weekend.
Quote from: retcopper on Apr 25, 2006, 03:37 PMSergeant, I am not calling you a liar because you were told you failed your exams but maybe some outside issues regarding the test affected your results. If you were telling the truth and I have no reason to believe you weren't, then it is my opinion the polygrpaher was wrong and not the instrument.
Retcopper,
If a subject is telling the complete truth and still fails because of "outside issues" doesn't that indicate the polygraph is not a useful process for detecting deception? The criteria for passing a polygraph exam should consist solely of answering all questions in a truthful manner. If the subject does that they should pass every single time.
Answering all questions truthfully is exactly what I did. My answers didn't change from test to test, since when you are telling the truth it is easy to be consistent. Apparently there were different "outside issues" on my first three polygraphs, since I failed each one for different reasons.
In my first polygraph the examiner concluded I was lying when I stated I had never used or sold cocaine. In my second exam whatever "issues" I had with cocaine had apparently been resolved, but I apparently had issues with fighting and assaulting people. By my third polygraph I was apparently a thief, but had gotten over whatever issues I'd had with cocaine and assaults. In my fourth exam, the same examiner who failed me because I supposedly stole things concluded I was not being deceptive about anything. It seems to me that a scientifically valid test would have replicable results; if I continued to show "issues" during each test every time I was asked about cocaine I would probably have a little more faith in the process.
For the record, I was completely truthful in all of the tests. I know that for a fact.
I fully understand that you and the rest of the visitors to this message board can't possibly know whether I was telling the truth during my four polygraphs. Apparently the examiner I had in each of those tests didn't know either. The examiners guessed whether I was being truthful or deceptive based on who-knows-what. Three times they guessed wrong and once they guessed correctly. Since I know I was being completely truthful I can conclude that the polygraph is not a valid method of detecting deception.
OPP
if you're in DOD, whether mil or civ, then you know there are levels of sacrifice in everything done in service to the nation. we're not in it for the money, there are more regs, rules, laws that apply than the normal citizen or even gov't employee that works a normal lazy cush job--you know the ones---you go to their desk for service and either either enjoying comp time, training, or gone home early.
we take these jobs on knowing the restrictions, knowing the reason for them and the higher standard. i live with the perspective on life that i have nothing to hide and anyone can ask me anything anytime. so nothing bothers me. it's good you are honest with yourself to question whether this is what you want.
what you might consider, if they have not already ask you, is what would you do if a foreign and hostile intellgience agency seized one of your wife's relatives in an attempt to bribe, blackmail, or force you to work for them. if you can stand and reason that they're either going to kill them or several others as well as put national security in jeopardy and select loyalty to our country and its security, then you should have no problem. that is not to say it will be an easy decision or one that you'll second guess for a lifetime if the worst occurs. again, it is a weight we CHOOSE or CHOOSE NOT to live with.
Read the following books and maybe it will help you decide: By Way of Deception, Gideon's Spies, and Profits of War; all about the Isreali Mossad. Also, recommend WIDOWS...has 3 authors, 2 with same name; difficult to find, but may also influence your decision.
C/I polys are easy and no problem if you have not done any of the things they ask; and if you have, you have an opportunity to explain and put in context. the one that would be a flare is contact with foreign persons since your relatives would introduce you to other foreigners while visiting. mind your P&Qs with them, don't talk anything of your job, take mental notes to report, get more info from them than they do you to help with your contact report, report on arrival back, and answer honestly.
i have had several undesired foreign "sales pitches" and it has not impacted my C/I poly. reported all to proper authorities upon occurrance, reported all those and foreigners I come in contact with.
AND, WHOEVER PUT THE POLITICAL B.S. BELOW OPP'S QUESTION AND SATURATED HIS BLOGG IS A HAIRY, UNWIPED CHAFFING ASSHOLE.
- j
Quote from: NSAreject on Apr 14, 2006, 05:44 PMRelatives, with non-US citizenship , for NSA
and CIA, are clearance killers.
Not true.... you dont know what your talking about.
Kockstar,
Screw you - I worked for NSA for many years, and now for the CIA. Intel agencies require that immediate family members be US citizens. My boss married a foreign national and had to get a, "letter of compelling need", in order to get his CIA clearance. The first question, from recruiters with private contractors is, "are all your immediate family members US citizens ?". On my SF86, for the CIA, I had to list all of my immediate family members, plus our Parents, as US citizens.
Quote from: NSAreject on Jun 24, 2006, 03:10 PMMy boss married a foreign national and had to get a, "letter of compelling need", in order to get his CIA clearance.
see its not a requirement as you stated.. its not a "clearance killer" as you stated... it can be done...
Quote from: NSAreject on Jun 24, 2006, 03:10 PM
The first question, from recruiters with private contractors is, "are all your immediate family members US citizens ?". On my SF86, for the CIA, I had to list all of my immediate family members, plus our Parents, as US citizens.
The reason thats the first question is they have to see how many people they have to clear or investigate..
you dont know what your talking about. stop giving out bogus information.. its not "clearance killer"... It can be done..
Kockstar,
Well, then debate it with:
http://www.securityinstruction.com/ADR/dcid64/dcid64T.htm
Personnel Security Standards and Procedures Governing Eligibility for Access to Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI)
5. Personnel Security Standards.
a. The individual requiring access to SCI must be a US citizen.
b. The individual's immediate family must also be US citizens.
6. Exceptions to Personnel Security Standards.
c. Exceptions to the US citizenship requirement for individuals to be accessed to SCI and their immediate family members shall require certification of a compelling need. This exception should be based upon a specific national security requirement and a certification of compelling need.
Screw you !
Quote from: NSAreject on Jun 28, 2006, 02:20 PMKockstar,
Well, then debate it with:
http://www.securityinstruction.com/ADR/dcid64/dcid64T.htm
Personnel Security Standards and Procedures Governing Eligibility for Access to Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI)
5. Personnel Security Standards.
a. The individual requiring access to SCI must be a US citizen.
b. The individual's immediate family must also be US citizens.
6. Exceptions to Personnel Security Standards.
c. Exceptions to the US citizenship requirement for individuals to be accessed to SCI and their immediate family members shall require certification of a compelling need. This exception should be based upon a specific national security requirement and a certification of compelling need.
Screw you !
see how stupid you are... read section c. Statments of compelling need basicly cover people who have foriegn born spouses.. thanks for posting that to prove how wrong you are... no wonder you name is Reject. you tried to post that it was a "clearance killer" haha how dumb and informed can you be to post that and then post the regulation that proves your comment wrong.
Kockstar,
You are obviously not worth the time-of-day; you are probably a disgruntled polygrapher. The point of the article, is that getting an exception is not easy, and I am sure that most private contractors would not be willing to go that route - thus, I would consider it, generally, to be a clearance killer. My boss, even being a high-level program manager, had a difficult time getting cleared. Think and say, as you may. Yes, I am stupid, for playing into your hand...