Whistle-blowers polygraphed?

[False +]

One has to wonder if, sometime before this horrid tragedy today, a whistle-blower on the inside of whatever terrorist network did this, gave a warning to the US Govt, and got polygraphed, and failed, and was then ignored.

At the minimum, something like that must have happened in the past at some point...

[Anonymous]

That is like saying...

One has to wonder if, sometime before this horrid tragedy today, a member of whatever terrorist network did this, got polygraphed and passed, and was released.

At the minimum, something like that must have happened in the past at some point...Perhaps Bin Laden and his ilk downloaded "The Lie Behind the Lie Detector."  Perhaps they owe a great deal of "thanks" to this site.  The polygraph is not 100 percent perfect, but it is a valuable tool.  

[Wannabe]

one can wonder many things, but good or bad, the polygraph and those associated with it are NOT to blame for the tragic attack on America today. Now is when we as Americans should pull together in support not point fingers in pure conjecture. To those who may have had family or friends killed or injured, my personal prayers are with you and your families. To those who have not been DIRECTLY affected, though all Americans are affected in some way, remember, we are all Americans, and as such we must stick together in this time of Attack.

God Bless and keep you

[George W. Maschke]

One has to wonder if, sometime before this horrid tragedy today, a whistle-blower on the inside of whatever terrorist network did this, gave a warning to the US Govt, and got polygraphed, and failed, and was then ignored.

At the minimum, something like that must have happened in the past at some point...

False +,

You raise an interesting point. Certainly, resposibility for the terrible crimes we have witnessed rests with those who committed them and no one else. Polygraphy may or may not have had some intersection with yesterday's terrorist strikes, and speculative fingerpointing is counterproductive.

That said, I think that our reliance on polygraphy, if it is to have any role in our counterintelligence and counterterrorism efforts, should be limited to an interrogation ploy, and no reliance at all should be placed on polygraph chart readings.

The Department of Defense Polygraph Institute offers a course on the polygraph testing of informants titled "Operational Source Testing":

OPERATIONAL SOURCE TESTING (32 CEH)

Although originally designed specifically to enhance the abilities of the intelligence and counterintelligence examiners who are or were being assigned to PDD duties in support of  human intelligence and offensive counterintelligence operations, this course has now broadened to provide topics of interest to the federal law enforcement polygraph examiner. The course includes background information on operational terminology, briefings on the operational structure and function of various intelligence agencies within the federal government. Also included are instructional segments concerning legal issues, use of interpreters, Foreign Intelligence Service recruitment operations and Domestic and International Terrorism. Instruction will also be offered in the areas of Foreign Use of Polygraph and an expanded block of instruction on the use of polygraph in source and Informant Testing. A developing topic of the course will be offered on the issue of Cultural Impacts of PDD Testing.
Prerequisite: The student must be employed or contracted as a  polygraph examiner by a federal law enforcement or counterintelligence agency.

An apparent spectacular failure of "Operational Source Testing" is the case of the 1995 Chinese walk-in source who provided the CIA with reams of classified Chinese documents on rocketry and atomic weapons. Those documents went largely unexploited for years, apparently because the source "failed" a polygraph "test." For more on this case, see the message thread, "Polygraph 'Testing' and the 1995 Chinese 'Walk-in.'"

The point Anonymous raises (deceptive persons beating the polygraph) is another consideration. While I realize that Anonymous' remarks were intended to be ironic, it remains the case that over the years, many double agents have passed their polygraph "tests." Aldrich Ames is merely the most notorious of these.

[George W. Maschke]

False +,

A comment in today's (14 Sep. 2001) Los Angeles Times is relevant to the question you raised. In an article titled &quo
t;Ex-President Bush Says CIA Is Too Reliant on Technology" Bob Drogin reports:

A U.S. intelligence official sharply disputed the criticism [of CIA rules that require overseas agents to gain headquarters' approval before they hire informants suspected of human rights violations], however, saying the rules were not obstacles to effective counter-terrorism. Instead, he said, the rules protected field agents from unfair attack if an informant operation backfired.

"The fact of the matter is we have never turned down a request from the field to put such a person on the payroll if they could help on terrorism because of a shaky human rights past," the official said. "It sounds good in theory to say there are bureaucratic obstacles, but it's not that simple."

The real problem, he added, "is there's not a large line of people ready to rat out Osama bin Laden [even if we could] get them past the polygraph. These groups are very, very hard to penetrate."

The comments of the above-cited anonymous intelligence official suggest that failure to pass a polygraph "test" has not resulted in the CIA rejecting any informants inside bin Ladin's al-Qa'ida network. But the above quotation does suggest that the CIA would indeed require any such informant to "pass" a polygraph "test."

[False +]

George,

I would indeed tend to agree with this anonymous intelligence official regarding how to treat information from a Bin Laden insider (or from a similar network) guilty of human rights abuses in the past. Good info is good info, whomever it comes from.

My worry is if, for instance, the info comes from say, a defector of such a network who happens to be in the US, or at least out of the Middle East. I suspect this defector would be subject to a battery of polygraph interrogations, and I fear that anything helpful might not be given sufficient weight due to a "physiological reaction" when uttering this helpful info.

[George W. Maschke]

False +,

Based on an Associated Press report titled "
Feds Arrest Attacks Material Witness," it seems that investigators are indeed discounting a witness' account (not necessarily the witness who was arrested) based on polygraph chart readings:

Meanwhile, the FBI provided warnings Friday to two Southeast cities - Richmond, Va., and Atlanta - that information developed since Tuesday's attacks suggested terrorists may have had plans for attacks in those cities, law enforcement officials said.

But late Friday, further investigation left officials doubtful of the threat.

The information came from an acquaintance of one of the hijackers, suggesting Federal Reserve banks in the cities might be targeted, the officials said, speaking only on condition of anonymity.

The information was shared with the cities, but the witness failed a a lie-detector test Friday evening, suggesting his account was not credible, the officials said.