Richard A. Clarke Against Polygraph Screening

[George W. Maschke]

Former national counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke has publicly come out against pre-employment polygraph screening. In an open letter to Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte published in the Sunday New York Times magazine under the title, "Building a Better Spy," among other recommendations, Clarke writes:

Forget the polygraph as an entry-level screening device. Many good people will not even think of joining the C.I.A. now because they know the stories about being strapped up around the ribs, having electrodes tied to the fingertips and then being bullied by somebody who wants to know too many irrelevant and private details. Save the star chamber for investigations.

Examples of some such polygraph stories may be found here:

http://antipolygraph.org/statements.shtml

Apart from deterring good people from even applying to the CIA and other federal agencies, reliance on the polygraph is also resulting in many good people who do apply being wrongly branded as liars by their government. A recent report suggests that as many as 75% of CIA applicants are being eliminated by the polygraph. Can they all be liars?

Knowing that polygraph "testing" has no scientific basis to begin with, it is understandable that many of the best qualified persons would seek employment elsewhere. It is to be hoped that Mr. Negroponte will take action upon Mr. Clarke's common sense recommendation and put an end to polygraph screening not only at the CIA, but also the other agencies under his purview.

[NSAreject]

George,

   I know the culture at NSA, all too well; the
polygraph will never be dropped, unless mandated by
Congress.  But even Congress, has left a loop-hole in
the reciprocity of security clearance transfers, for
agencies that require a polygraph.  Peoples' lives really
are the Agency, and that all boils down to security,
meaning the polygraph.  One has to be careful what is
said at work, what Internet sites one visits (home and
work), and knowing one can be monitored at any time,
if there are any issues, etc.; it is a hell of a way to live.
I found out that they want me to sit for a full-scope
poly, but I will have to be content with just a CI poly;
the extra pay and job security just isn't worth it.  I am
not going to give them the opportunity to screw me.  
The polygraph is not just an initial screening tool, but a
way to intimidate people into constant submission.

[Fair Chance]

NSA reject is on the mark.

The FBI is currently trying to expand polygraph usage within the agency.

Right next to forcing someone to move to an assignment "due to the needs of the agency (all agents are required to sign a mobility statement that allows the agency to move them at any time)", the polygraph is the next threat to keep "malcontents" in line.  

Hell of a way to run an agency sworn to enforce the Constitution.

I do not tell anyone to not apply for a position based on the polygraph but I do try to educate the applicant on the ramifications of failing the polygraph.  I also stress that the appeal procedure is spotty at best.  Only in exceptional cases will a polygraph "failure" be overturned subsequent to an appeal.

I can not even imagine what the spooks in the CIA and NSA would like to use it for interrogation purposes.

1.  Have you ever beat your dog when you came home?
2.  Would you like to beat me now?
3.  If given the chance, would you like to beat your dog?
4.  Do you own a dog?
5.  Were you approved by the local SPCA to purchase a dog?
6.  Did your dog die a natural death?
7.  Are you a cat person?

Don't laugh, readers, I am closer to the truth than you realize.

Regards.

[Jeffery]

1.  Have you ever beat your dog when you came home?
2.  Would you like to beat me now?
3.  If given the chance, would you like to beat your dog?
4.  Do you own a dog?
5.  Were you approved by the local SPCA to purchase a dog?
6.  Did your dog die a natural death?
7.  Are you a cat person?

Ha Ha.  Good one.
1.  Answer: No Never.  
2.  Answer: No (Lie; Control Question; in all honesty I'd like to pound you into the ground...)
3.  Answer: No.
4.  Answer: No.
5.  Answer: "I don't own a dog"  Polygrapher: "Answer the question Yes or No please.  Do you want to coopearte and pass this test?  Or are you going to keep messing around here??"
6.  Answer: No.  Polygrapher: "C'mon.  Dogs can be a pain in the ass.  Everybody knows it.  I had a dog once and lit its ass up with keresone.  Everybody kicks a dog around now and then.  I'd frankly be surprised if you didn't.  We just need to know the truth here and no you are a real person -- and more importanly, an hones person.  Now, did your dog die a natural death?  Me (shocked, bewildered after being accused of being a dog abuser and never hacing owned a dog): "I've never owned a dog."
7.  Answer: "Meow."

[NSAreject]

I really don't mind sitting for CI polys; if that will
convince them that I am not a spy, then so be it.  As
George has pointed out, the failure rate is extremely
low (probably higher now, since they ask about hacking
into computer systems).   I refuse to let them into my
personal life anymore, to the extent of the full-scope
poly; it is simply no longer their business.  If they want
to see, if I am a drug abuser, then I will give them a
urine sample (already did that for my last job); if I have
committed any major crimes, then check police and
FBI files; if I abuse alcohol, then a blood test to check
liver function; and if I look at porn on the Internet, then
check eyesight and for hairy palms  

[George W. Maschke]

Richard Clarke has again spoken out against polygraph screening. In an ABC News report about the Aragoncillo espionage case, Clarke stated, "Lie-detector tests can be beaten. They are largely a myth as to their effectiveness."

More such truthtelling about lie detectors is needed, not just by former intelligence officials, but by those currently serving in agencies that use the polygraph who know it's a sham. Now is the time to speak out.

[Drew Richardson]

Richard Clarke has again spoken out against polygraph screening. In an ABC News report about the Aragoncillo espionage case, Clarke stated, "Lie-detector tests can be beaten. They are largely a myth as to their effectiveness."

More such truthtelling about lie detectors is needed, not just by former intelligence officials, but by those currently serving in agencies that use the polygraph who know it's a sham. Now is the time to speak out.

I am not sure what Richard Clarke's background is that would allow him to come to such conclusions, but he is exactly correct. As has been said by others, the use of these examinations for the protection of the national security is NOT better than nothing, not even a (neutral) wash, but harmful and a danger to national security and the reputation of innocent examinees alike (a separate issue with an equally horrible track record).  These examinations should be immediately stopped and serious vetting should never again be shortchanged by such nonsense.

[ILGA_RITA]

RICHARD CLARKE WAS CLINTON'S NATIONAL COORDINATOR FOR COUNTERTERRORISM AND IS NOW BUSH'S ADVISOR ON CYBERSPACE SECURITY. I HOPE SOMEONE OUT THERE IS LISTENING.

[George W. Maschke]

I am not sure what Richard Clarke's background is that would allow him to come to such conclusions, but he is exactly correct....

According to reporter Jeff Stein ("Does the CIA stereotype Jews as security risks?") CIA lawyer Adam Ciralsky had been recruited to work for Richard Clarke at the National Security Council when the CIA allegedly rigged a polygraph examination as a pretext for firing him.