Ex-FBI Special Agent and CIA Officer Nada Nadim Prouty Passed Pre-Employment Polygraphs Despite Fraudulently Obtaining U.S. Citizenship

[nopolycop]

This is just one data point.  When the feds catch spies (and they do), nobody here jumps to argue for polygraph.  Why then the reverse?

We in polygraph know we will catch some and we will miss some.  We need to work on ways to catch more, and miss fewer.  Remember, there is nothing after the polygraph in most situations, and, as I've posted elsewhere, if polygraph is even slightly better than chance (and it is), then we'll catch more than we miss.

For one thing, the polygraph industry, (see PolygraphPlace) seems to be trying to convince people the polygraph is highly accurate.  I could copy and paste dozens of comments to back up my statement, but anyone can simply check out this assertion.

But, there is a much larger issue, that being the number or percentage of errors where the polygraph procedure brands someone a liar, when they are telling the truth.   What happened to the old adage "It is better that 100 guilty people go free, than one innocent convicted?"  This is what drives our criminal justice system, and why people are only convicted upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  But, it is okay to "convict" someone of being a liar, drug dealer, thief, etc. based on what the pre-employment polygraph procedure results are.  Which, as we know, is simply one man's opinion based on some squiggly lines on a computer screen.

[1904]

Have you missed the fact that polygraph isn't perfect? You're going to have errors on both sides.  The question is how many "errors" (BI) do you catch with polygraph?  It is well-documented that polygraph results in admissions or info the background process didn't or couldn't get.

When one believes that polygraph, the background investigation, or psychological eval, etc, is going to catch all those who are not qualified, then there's a problem.

This is just one data point.  When the feds catch spies (and they do), nobody here jumps to argue for polygraph.  Why then the reverse?

We in polygraph know we will catch some and we will miss some.  We need to work on ways to catch more, and miss fewer.  Remember, there is nothing after the polygraph in most situations, and, as I've posted elsewhere, if polygraph is even slightly better than chance (and it is), then we'll catch more than we miss.

I think that you and your ilk would catch more spies if you used the
'pin the tail on the donkey' method.

[Barry_C]

What happened to the old adage "It is better that 100 guilty people go free, than one innocent convicted?"  This is what drives our criminal justice system, and why people are only convicted upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  But, it is okay to "convict" someone of being a liar, drug dealer, thief, etc. based on what the pre-employment polygraph procedure results are.  Which, as we know, is simply one man's opinion based on some squiggly lines on a computer screen.

Nobody is "convicted" during a pre-employment test, so you're way off base here.  To call them "squiggly lines" is a bit of an oversimplification.  You assume - with no science to back it up - that all those who claim to be false positives actually are.  Some will be, yes, as that's the problem with an imperfect test.  However, as I've said elsewhere (and can't continue to explain), because polygraph is better than chance, the process is more fair to the truthful than it would be without polygraph.

[nopolycop]

What happened to the old adage "It is better that 100 guilty people go free, than one innocent convicted?"  This is what drives our criminal justice system, and why people are only convicted upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  But, it is okay to "convict" someone of being a liar, drug dealer, thief, etc. based on what the pre-employment polygraph procedure results are.  Which, as we know, is simply one man's opinion based on some squiggly lines on a computer screen.

Nobody is "convicted" during a pre-employment test, so you're way off base here.  To call them "squiggly lines" is a bit of an oversimplification.  You assume - with no science to back it up - that all those who claim to be false positives actually are.  Some will be, yes, as that's the problem with an imperfect test.  However, as I've said elsewhere (and can't continue to explain), because polygraph is better than chance, the process is more fair to the truthful than it would be without polygraph.

Mr. C.

When a person is told by a police or national security agency that he is lying, and summarily removed from further consideration for a job, and then is branded a liar and the results of that error ridden polygraph is then used to ban him from further jobs, and then when there is no way for a person to prove he was in fact telling the truth, I would equate that with being wrongfully convicted of a crime.

The criminal justice system requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convict someone of a crime, but only the opinion of someone who spent 8 weeks or so in a trade school to brand a person for life.

Of course, not all claimed false positives are in fact false positives, but when the polygraph field itself admits to somewhere between an 80 to 95 percent or so false positive rante, (read "the poly was wrong"), and when we are dealing with hundreds of thousands of applicants, then it is a very serious problem.


I'll stand by my assertions and opinion, and while they are not backed by science, at least they are logical.

[WJ]

Have you missed the fact that polygraph isn't perfect? You're going to have errors on both sides.  The question is how many "errors" (BI) do you catch with polygraph?  It is well-documented that polygraph results in admissions or info the background process didn't or couldn't get.

When one believes that polygraph, the background investigation, or psychological eval, etc, is going to catch all those who are not qualified, then there's a problem.

This is just one data point.  When the feds catch spies (and they do), nobody here jumps to argue for polygraph.  Why then the reverse?

We in polygraph know we will catch some and we will miss some.  We need to work on ways to catch more, and miss fewer.  Remember, there is nothing after the polygraph in most situations, and, as I've posted elsewhere, if polygraph is even slightly better than chance (and it is), then we'll catch more than we miss.

At least you're being honest.  The two polys I took the polygrapher told me that "the machine does not lie".  What a bunch of BS.  Telling someone that they are being deceptive and knowing that the machine is "not perfect" is dishonest to say the least.  This is why the machine should no longer be used.

[SanchoPanza]

Have you missed the fact that polygraph isn't perfect? You're going to have errors on both sides.  The question is how many "errors" (BI) do you catch with polygraph?  It is well-documented that polygraph results in admissions or info the background process didn't or couldn't get.

When one believes that polygraph, the background investigation, or psychological eval, etc, is going to catch all those who are not qualified, then there's a problem.

This is just one data point.  When the feds catch spies (and they do), nobody here jumps to argue for polygraph.  Why then the reverse?

We in polygraph know we will catch some and we will miss some.  We need to work on ways to catch more, and miss fewer.  Remember, there is nothing after the polygraph in most situations, and, as I've posted elsewhere, if polygraph is even slightly better than chance (and it is), then we'll catch more than we miss.

At least you're being honest.  The two polys I took the polygrapher told me that "the machine does not lie".  What a bunch of BS.  Telling someone that they are being deceptive and knowing that the machine is "not perfect" is dishonest to say the least.  This is why the machine should no longer be used.

Seriously?   "The machine does not lie"
Mr. Mashke, you have a PHD. Are you acknowledging that you were convinced that a mechanical device is capable of sentient behavior or has some malevolent cranium obsessed hammer accosted you in your sleep?

Sancho Panza

[WJ]

Have you missed the fact that polygraph isn't perfect? You're going to have errors on both sides.  The question is how many "errors" (BI) do you catch with polygraph?  It is well-documented that polygraph results in admissions or info the background process didn't or couldn't get.

When one believes that polygraph, the background investigation, or psychological eval, etc, is going to catch all those who are not qualified, then there's a problem.

This is just one data point.  When the feds catch spies (and they do), nobody here jumps to argue for polygraph.  Why then the reverse?

We in polygraph know we will catch some and we will miss some.  We need to work on ways to catch more, and miss fewer.  Remember, there is nothing after the polygraph in most situations, and, as I've posted elsewhere, if polygraph is even slightly better than chance (and it is), then we'll catch more than we miss.

At least you're being honest.  The two polys I took the polygrapher told me that "the machine does not lie".  What a bunch of BS.  Telling someone that they are being deceptive and knowing that the machine is "not perfect" is dishonest to say the least.  This is why the machine should no longer be used.

Seriously?   "The machine does not lie"
Mr. Mashke, you have a PHD. Are you acknowledging that you were convinced that a mechanical device is capable of sentient behavior or has some malevolent cranium obsessed hammer accosted you in your sleep?

Sancho Panza

You know what I mean.  It is obvious that the devious polygraphers were implying that the machine is never wrong.  Wow...it is very interesting that you are so intimidated.

[George W. Maschke]

On Sunday, 28 March 2010, CBS 60 Minutes aired a story about Nada Prouty that included an in-depth interview with her. 60 Minutes also spoke with the CIA officer who conducted a security review after she became the target of an FBI investigation. Prouty denies having improperly accessed FBI computer systems, and as I've mentioned before, there's no evidence that she committed espionage:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6341542n&tag=contentMain;contentBody

Sadly, polygraphy, which failed in the FBI hiring process, was again relied upon by the CIA in its attempt to determine whether Prouty had compromised sensitive information. Bob Grenier, the former head of the CIA's counterterrorism section, emphasized that the investigation involved "multiple polygraphs." And 60 Minutes showed the text of a letter that the CIA sent to prosecutors. The following is a transcription that I've prepared (emphasis added):

Mr. Kenneth Chadwell
Resident U.S. Attorney
United States Attorney's Office
Eastern District of Michigan
211 West Fort Street, Suite 2001
Detroit, Michigan 48226-3211

Re: Nada Prouty

Dear Mr. Chadwell:

This letter is to inform you that the CIA conducted a debriefing of Nada Prouty which began on 28 January 2008, and included a polygraph interview. Mrs. Prouty was fully cooperative during both processes.

The Agency did not identify any information that Mrs. Prouty or engaged in unauthorized contact with a foreign intelligence service or terrorist organization.

Sincerely,

[signed]
Charles S. Phalen, Jr.
Director of Security

In any event, allegations that Nada Prouty was a Hizballah spy seem to be completely unsupported by evidence, and it doesn't seem to me that the cause of justice was served by her prosecution.

Extra video, not included in the broadcast segment, is available on CBSNews.com:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/26/60minutes/main6335794.shtml?tag=currentVideoInfo;segmentTitle

[George W. Maschke]

Reporter Jeff Stein, now with the Washington Post, discusses the Prouty case in his SpyTalk column. See, "The haunting of Nada Prouty, a counterterrorism heroine":

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/03/haunting_of_nada_prouty.html

See also David Ashenfelter's article, "Lawyer goes to bat for Nada Prouty, suits threatened over terrorist spy remarks," in the Detroit Free Press:

http://www.freep.com/article/20100330/NEWS06/3300355/1322/Lawyer-goes-to-bat-for-Nada-Prouty-suits-threatened-over-terrorist-spy-remarks