FBI Testing local cops ......

[EosJupiter]

To all concerned;

I got this article and found it most interesting. Our friendly neighborhood FBI polygraphers will be testing all the local cops who work on counterterrorism task forces around the country. Lets see how many they brand as liars and other assorted bad guys. With the FBi polygraphers failing at least 50% of folks. They will singlehandly decimate these fine organizations. For our local LEO folks ... be afraid, be very afraid !!!!

Link:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-06-18-police-polygraph_x.htm?csp=34

Text:

FBI to give police lie-detector tests  
Posted 6/18/2006 11:09 PM ET E-mail | Save | Print | Reprints & Permissions | Subscribe to stories like this  
 
By Kevin Johnson, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — The FBI will give lie-detector tests to hundreds of state and local police officers assigned to terrorism task forces across the country as part of a new effort to battle espionage and unauthorized information leaks.
FBI Assistant Director Charles Phalen said the polygraph program was launched in the past month at seven of the bureau's 56 field offices where agents are teamed with local police to investigate terrorism.

The polygraph tests are part of an ongoing security crackdown following the conviction of former FBI counterintelligence agent Robert Hanssen, whose spying activities for Russia and the former Soviet Union went undetected for 15 years. He was sentenced in 2002 to life without parole.

Up to 2,000 state and local officers could be required to submit to testing, Phalen said.

"There is no more powerful tool in our tool bag" than lie-detector tests, Phalen said.

Phalen said the FBI hopes the testing will establish "a common level of trust" within the teams of federal agents and local police and encourage a free exchange of information.

An official with the largest police union fears the program could have the opposite effect.

"This is symptomatic of the FBI's paternalistic approach to the rest of law enforcement," said Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police.

"This could lead to more tension between local law enforcement and the FBI, which has existed over the years," Pasco said. "It fosters the view that the FBI is somehow superior to local law enforcement, and that is demonstrably untrue."

None of the local officers would be exempt from the testing.

Houston Police Chief Harold Hurtt, president of the major cities chiefs group, said the program was met with some "concern" over whether the bureau would provide test results with local department officials, especially if those findings revealed "questionable conduct" by the officers.

But Hurtt said the FBI committed to sharing that information with the departments as part of what the chief said was "a reasonable approach" to securing classified information.

"It's something we need to do going forward," Hurtt said.

The FBI began requiring all new employees to submit to polygraph examinations in 1994. That program did not apply to agents and employees, including Hanssen, who were hired before that time.

Among the changes adopted after the spy scandal was a requirement that all agents to submit to polygraphs and be retested every five years.

Five years after the changes were implemented, an undisclosed number of agents, analysts and other employees have yet to be given a polygraph test, Phalen acknowledged.

Phalen said the bureau has primarily focused on members of the FBI's national security division. All positions in that division, he said, have been "covered."

"We know we have not gotten everybody," the assistant director said, referring to the entire bureau. "But I believe we have the core of the people, and we continue to focus on that core."

About 90 examiners have been conducting between 7,500 and 8,000 tests per year. More than half of those examinations involve new applicants. The remainder involves existing agents and other employees.

About 25% of new applicants are disqualified based on polygraphs. Phalen said only a "couple dozen" of existing employees each year register some sort of "deception" upon testing.

------------------------

Regards ....

 

[FBI-Reject]

I doubt that the FBI will be as cavalier with existing LE.  It's not like pre-employment applications, where applications are more than 250:1 per some statistics.  They might actually give people legitimate "retests"

[Sergeant1107]

I would be willing to bet that if significant numbers of police officers "fail" their polygraphs the FBI will quietly discontinue the program and never mention it again.

I can't see the FBI telling multiple departments that significant numbers of their decorated, veteran officers have "failed" their polygraphs and cannot be permitted to work on the Joint Counterterrorism Task Force.  The backlash would simply be too severe.

[Drew Richardson]

I notice that an FBI Assistant Director, Mr. Charles Phalen, is quoted as saying that "There is no more powerful tool in our (presumably the FBI's) tool bag (than lie-detector tests)."  Hopefully this is not true (what a scary thought if this tool bag is a mainstay in the Bureau's counter-intelligence and counter-terrorism efforts), but admittedly I do not know at this point.  However, if true, the FBI's tool bag is merely a clown's tool bag suitable for a non-headliner act in the circus.

[Fair Chance]

Dear Drew,

Believe it.  I agree with you.  It is very scary that this is "the best tool" the FBI has in its toolbag.  What do you expect?  The FBI does not respect their most important "tool", their staff.  They use precision screwdrivers (analyst) as chisels (still have them at the reception desk and taking out the trash) and end up with a damaged tool no good for anything and then throw it back in the bag.

The best and brightest minds which the FBI needs are not going to tolerate being judged by polygraph examination.  They are only hiring those that "believe in the polygraph" and thus perpetuate this downward spiral which ends with the polygraph being their "best tool."

My opinion is that anyone who admits to polygraph knowledge and does not "believe" in its credibility is doomed to not being acceptable in the FBI.

Bottom line, say the the polygraph is useless to the applicant examiner and kiss your application good-bye.


Regards.

[matlambert]

Fair Chance stated-
"My opinion is that anyone who admits to polygraph knowledge and does not "believe" in its credibility is doomed to not being acceptable in the FBI."

That should be every police officer applying for a job.  All investigators are aware that any information obtained in a polygraph will most likely be useless in criminal courts.  It's unfortunate and scary they rely on the polygraph to this extent.  Eeeeks.  I had my application rescinded due to the poly and now I have to tell all my family and friends they don't know me as well as a noisy instrument and it's geeky puppeteer.  That's the breaks.

Matt

[EosJupiter]

Too all concerned,

An update to this thread: The fight is on.

Link: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/articles/061210/18whisplead.htm

Text: (just the pertinent part)

What's Wrong? Don't You Trust Us?

"Oh, no you won't" is the reaction of cops and other first responders to an almost rude FBI decision to ask its Joint Terrorism Task Force members to take a lie detector test. To the FBI, it's a smart move: Since 9/11, the task force of federal and local officials has expanded to some 1,500 in over a hundred offices nationwide. But to some members it's a slap, and something that could hurt their careers if the polygraph-whose accuracy is widely questioned by scientists-burps out an error. Joining local cops in opposition are agents with the Homeland Security Department's Immigration and Customs Enforcement.


So much for all the home boys complying ... gotta love it
-------

Regards ....

[LieBabyCryBaby]

EosJ:

These are guys who have been working for them and NOW they want to polygraph them? Give me a break. That just plain sucks. First they are trustworthy enough to be working with you, and now they can't be trusted? I have to side with the Anti-Polygraph guys on this one. It's one thing to polygraph potential employees, but it's another thing completely to start polygraphing your friends who aren't even FBI employees. No wonder FBI has such a bad name.

[Bill Crider]

These police have nothing to fear. Its 98% accurate. Also, even if a few good cops get run out of the force undesevedly, its acceptable collateral damage. No test is perfect. Its the best we got. I say polygraph them all!

[George W. Maschke]

EosJupiter,

Thanks for posting the U.S. News & World Report Washington Whispers item, which has also been added to the blog:

https://antipolygraph.org/blog/?p=96

Any readers who would like to provide relevant information to Paul Bedard, who writes Washington Whispers, can contact him at washingtonwhispers@usnews.com.

[LieBabyCryBaby]

These police have nothing to fear. Its 98% accurate. Also, even if a few good cops get run out of the force undesevedly, its acceptable collateral damage. No test is perfect. Its the best we got. I say polygraph them all!

Bill,

Regardless of how accurate or inaccurate the polygraph may be, that's not the point. The point is that these guys and gals have been working with FBI. They were trusted enough to be put on that task force, I assume, because they were the cream of the crop in FBI's opinion. Now, by trying to polygraph them, FBI is slapping them in the face, essentially saying, "We previously decided that you were trustworthy enough to join us, but now we're questioning our decision."

It's probably not a matter of fear that the officers don't want to take the polygraph. It's a matter of pride and feeling that their honor and integrity are now being questioned when neither was questioned before.

[EosJupiter]

Bill,

Regardless of how accurate or inaccurate the polygraph may be, that's not the point. The point is that these guys and gals have been working with FBI. They were trusted enough to be put on that task force, I assume, because they were the cream of the crop in FBI's opinion. Now, by trying to polygraph them, FBI is slapping them in the face, essentially saying, "We previously decided that you were trustworthy enough to join us, but now we're questioning our decision."

It's probably not a matter of fear that the officers don't want to take the polygraph. It's a matter of pride and feeling that their honor and integrity are now being questioned when neither was questioned before.

LBCB,

Your red highlighted statement sums up the basis of my issues, and I am sure for a majority of the others,  the issues with the polygraph. I could not have said it better myself. Welcome to the AntiPolygraph world.

Regards ....

[LieBabyCryBaby]

LBCB,

Your red highlighted statement sums up the basis of my issues, and I am sure for a majority of the others,  the issues with the polygraph. I could not have said it better myself. Welcome to the AntiPolygraph world.

Regards ....

EosJ,

I detect some sarcasm in your post, but for those who don't see it, there is absolutely no comparison between job applicants and people already on the job. Job applicants have no history with the agency where they've applied. They haven't been working with the agencies and put in positions of trust, only to then have the agencies turn around and imply that perhaps they can't be trusted after all. No one likes to have their integrity questioned, and job applicants certainly are no exception. But don't compare them to FBI task force members who are now being treated like red-headed stepchildren.

[George W. Maschke]

...Job applicants have no history with the agency where they've applied. They haven't been working with the agencies and put in positions of trust, only to then have the agencies turn around and imply that perhaps they can't be trusted after all....

In my experience, I had previously been detailed to three different Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs) and received letters of appreciation from two different FBI directors before an FBI polygrapher falsely branded me as a liar.

If polygraph screening were truly a valid means of screening out spies and saboteurs, then no one serving on a JTTF who is not involved in espionage or sabotage against the United States should have any objection to it. On the contary, they should welcome, nay demand it. The reason local police officers on JTTFs are balking at polygraph screening is that increasingly, they know it's unreliable.

[Sergeant1107]

...Job applicants have no history with the agency where they've applied.

True, but that's hardly a sufficient reason to treat them like suspects.  If we continue treating applicants like perps we will soon have less desirable applicants with which to fill our ranks.

...It's a matter of pride and feeling that their honor and integrity are now being questioned when neither was questioned before.

Perhaps this will help illustrate the frustration people like me have felt after a failed polygraph:

After sailing through the written test, the physical agility test, the psychological test, the oral boards, and the background investigation, I was number one on the list.  I had a very good school record, terrific references, an outstanding military record, no criminal history, and had only a couple of minor blemishes in my past, none of which were considered even remotely serious by anyone I spoke to in authority at the department.  I was absolutely confident that I was going to be offered a job, because I had nothing at all to hide and had excelled in every aspect of the testing process.  All I had to get by was the polygraph.

Despite a background investigation that didn't turn up anything (because there was nothing to turn up) I was disqualified because the polygraph examiner decided I was being deceptive about selling cocaine and using cocaine.  The examiner, and only the examiner, thought I was lying when I stated that I had never used cocaine and had certainly never sold cocaine.  The background investigator could have spoken with every person I had ever met in my entire life, no matter how brief my contact had been with them, and they would never have been able to find anyone who could honestly say that I had ever had anything to do with cocaine.  But that didn't happen because one person, out of all the people involved in my background investigation and my application process, said that in his opinion I was lying.  One person who spoke with me for a couple of hours at the most had questioned my honesty and my integrity and had torpedoed my chances of getting hired by that department.  

I had gone through the application process with complete honesty and not withheld any information whatsoever.  At no point was my honor and integrity questioned until the polygraph examiner did so with his 100% erroneous conclusions.

If I had the opportunity to work with the JCTF I would certainly consider it.  However, if they said a requirement of working with them was to take a polygraph I would tell them to take their Task Force and shove it up their ass.  And the reason would not be: "It's a matter of pride and feeling that their honor and integrity are now being questioned when neither was questioned before."

My honor and integrity have been questioned before, and it was by the polygraph process, which is required for all police applicants in Connecticut.  Since passing my fourth polygraph and getting hired by my current department, my honor and integrity are beyond question with everyone who knows me.  Just as they were when I failed my first three polygraph exams.