Does the Diplomatic Security Service at State use the polygraph at all on its staff and/or applicants?
I know that generally the State Dept. does not.
:-?
Quote from: xenonman on Aug 29, 2015, 09:13 PMDoes the Diplomatic Security Service at State use the polygraph at all on its staff and/or applicants?
I know that generally the State Dept. does not.
Don't know, they probably do because the elitists in the Diplomatic Corps look down on 1811's and they are just seen as commoners. What about Hillary ? I have no doubt that she would always be found NDI. If she was going down the drain and her political demise was assured, however, then like sharks devouring one of their own, the polygraphers would pounce on her and declare her DI. They would then take credit for discovering her nefarious behavior. If it wasn't so serious and there weren't so many innocent victims, the application of this garbage science is laughable.
Similarly, in Langley, the DDCI and DCI are immune from having to undergo the polygraph ordeal that their underlings all must suffer! ::)
Quote from: xenonman on Aug 29, 2015, 09:13 PMDoes the Diplomatic Security Service at State use the polygraph at all on its staff and/or applicants?
To the best of my knowledge, the answer to your question is "no" insofar as polygraph screening is concerned. See the State Department's polygraph policy here:
https://antipolygraph.org/documents/12m0250.pdf
However, the State Department has compelled non-U.S. citizens hired abroad to undergo polygraph screening "tests" at certain locations, including the U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen:
https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2013/03/29/u-s-embassy-in-yemen-reportedly-forces-local-employees-to-submit-to-polygraph-testing/
Quote from: xenonman on Aug 31, 2015, 12:02 AMSimilarly, in Langley, the DDCI and DCI are immune from having to undergo the polygraph ordeal that their underlings all must suffer! ::)
This is interesting. I'm surprised they don't take it to create the appearance of fairness. I guess our class of royalty in America is taking form. If they had to take it, they probably wouldn't fail it. If by some odd chance an overzealous polygraph examiner didn't follow the party line, there would be no consequences to them for failing.
I'm curious, does anyone know if General Petraeus was required to take a polygraph ? One of my friends told me that the polygraph is what tripped him up and got him in trouble. That could be correct, but my recollection is that someone came forward with information that lead to his troubles. If my recollection is correct, that could imply that he passed his polygraph(s) ?
I am not aware of any documentation that the CIA director and deputy director are exempt from the CIA's polygraph screening requirement. However, a 1994 article by Washington Post columnist Al Kamen suggests that CIA directors may not have been obligated to take the polygraph, but subjected themselves to it anyway:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1994/03/09/woolsey-to-join-cia-polygraph-test-club/debbca60-b3a1-4a67-a467-d5d5152f0a89/
With respect to former CIA director David Petraeus and the polygraph, see:
https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=5023.msg37139#msg37139
Quote from: George_Maschke on Sep 02, 2015, 02:01 PMHowever, a 1994 article by Washington Post columnist Al Kamen suggests that CIA directors may not have been obligated to take the polygraph, but subjected themselves to it anyway:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1994/03/09/woolsey-to-join-cia-p...
I love the quote from Robert M. Gates stating that "he volunteered to take it [polygraph] about a year after his appointment as CIA director in 1991 "to maintain the symbolism" of enduring the same hardships as rank-and-file employees". Doesn't that say it all ! Symbolism over substance, our new motto. In other words, it's a total joke because if he failed it absolutely nothing would happen to him. John Q. Public, on the otherhand, possibly an honest, innocent, wounded veteran with lots of debt and five mouths to feed would be out on the street.
Wandersmann:
Thanks for this interesting tidbit. Unfortunately the WP link does not seem to work.
A similar thing occurred around 1999 with Bill Richardson, head of the DOE. If memory serves, he took the security-screening polygraph to set an example for the rank-and-file scientists. (This was in the aftermath of the Wen Ho Lee incident.) Not surprisingly Richardson passed it. His polygrapher knew who the subject was, and the NDI was a foregone conclusion. The polygrapher's survival instincts kicked in; failing the manager guarantees your own failure.
Regards, Evan S
Quote from: 3122353A27540 on Sep 02, 2015, 02:54 PMThanks for this interesting tidbit. Unfortunately the WP link does not seem to work.
Thanks for letting me know Evan. I suggest everyone go to George Maschke's response above mine and use his link. It works.
Quote from: Wandersmann on Sep 02, 2015, 12:42 PMQuote from: xenonman on Aug 31, 2015, 12:02 AMSimilarly, in Langley, the DDCI and DCI are immune from having to undergo the polygraph ordeal that their underlings all must suffer! ::)
This is interesting. I'm surprised they don't take it to create the appearance of fairness. I guess our class of royalty in America is taking form. If they had to take it, they probably wouldn't fail it. If by some odd chance an overzealous polygraph examiner didn't follow the party line, there would be no consequences to them for failing.
I'm curious, does anyone know if General Petraeus was required to take a polygraph ? One of my friends told me that the polygraph is what tripped him up and got him in trouble. That could be correct, but my recollection is that someone came forward with information that lead to his troubles. If my recollection is correct, that could imply that he passed his polygraph(s) ?
NO, because as DCI he would have been exempt from the Agency polygraph requirement. ::)