FBI to Expand Polygraph Screening

[George Maschke (Guest)]

ABC News is reporting that the FBI has decided to increase its reliance on polygraph screening:

http://abcnews.go.com:80/sections/us/DailyNews/spy010228.html

Since the decision has apparently already been made, one wonders what purpose the eventual recommendations of Judge William H. Webster's blue ribbon panel will serve...

Last modification: George Maschke - 03/18/01 at 04:43:52

[George Maschke (Guest)]

On Friday, 16 March 2001, Jim Stewart reported on CBS Evening News that the Bureau is having second thoughts. His report begins:

Faced with the prospect of having to order thousands of FBI agents to have to be strapped to polygraph machines, Director Louis Freeh is encountering stiff resistance to the idea within the Bureau, [and] is apparently having second thoughts. Internal memos have warned Freeh that for every lie uncovered by polygraph examiners there will be fifty to one hundred false readings. Widespread tests could sideline or ruin careers and victimize employees, Free was told.

The segment can be viewed in RealPlayer format on the CBS News website at:

http://www.cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,279491-412,00.shtml

[George Maschke (Guest)]

It seems that CBS News' report about Director Freeh having second thoughts about polygraph screening was wrong. Director Freeh had already ordered more polygraph screening when the CBS News segment aired last Friday evening (16 March 2001). In today's (23 March 2001) Washington Times, Jerry Seper reports in an article entitled "Freeh beefs up FBI's security" that the Times has received a copy of FBI Director Louis Freeh's confidential 5-page memorandum issued last week ordering expanded polygraph "testing":

http://asp.washtimes.com/printarticle.asp?action=print&ArticleID=default-2001323222430

Considering that, as the FBI's top scientific expert on polygraphs has testified, polygraph screening has no more diagnostic value than astrology or tea leaf reading, it is hard to see how more polygraphs equates to "beefing up the FBI's security."

Where's the beef?

Last modification: George Maschke - 03/23/01 at 04:55:02

[Ray Latimer]

Hello,
Yesterday I read this subject and I wrote to you re: my opinion. Unfortunately, being unfamiliar with your format, I sent my reply by e-mail.
Just wanted to know if you received it. if so, any comments?

Ray L.

[George W. Maschke]

Ray,

Yes, I did receive your e-mail. If you had actually intended to post it to this message thread, please do, and I'll be happy to respond here.

[mdgray]

The fact that polygraphs sometimes produce confessions makes them one step above tea leave readings and of some value. Of course if more people believed in tea leave readings they would also produce confessions. And would be just as valuable.  Where the polygraph's value is dubious is in the absence of a confession. I suspect most polygraphers don't sleep well at night.

I hope the FBI doesn't lose too many good agents as a result of this witchhunt. There's got to be a better and more effective way to find spys than this.

-Z

[George W. Maschke]

The fact that polygraphs sometimes produce confessions makes them one step above tea leave readings and of some value.

Certainly, our counterintelligence officials value the admissions/confessions obtained through polygraph screening. But they make the mistake of supposing that polygraph chart readings have diagnostic value for determining whether someone is a spy. As the FBI's own top expert has publicly testified, the diagnostic value of this kind of test is no more than that of astrology or tea-leaf reading.

By placing any reliance on polygraph chart readings, we run the serious risk of lulling ourselves into a false sense of security about those who "pass." U.S. News & World Report this week is reporting that the FBI is conducting an ongoing hunt for yet another Russian mole, noting that some 400 employees working on the case were required to take polygraph tests (as if that somehow could provide some assurance that the mole they're looking for is not one of those 400).

[mdgray]

...But they make the mistake of supposing that polygraph chart readings have diagnostic value for determining whether someone is a spy.
looking for is not one of those 400).

Yes George, but I think that they know they have to maintain the fiction that the polygraph is highly effective else the confession rate, which is uncontestably valuable, were to diminish. After all, it depends on widespread belief in its efficacy. Other, even less pleasant techniques for fact finding exist that don't depend on a lie.  Torture, for instance, never far off in many countries, is making an official resurgence in some.

All in all a pretty disgusting mess. Glad I'm in the private (and non defense) area.

 

[George W. Maschke]

mdgray,

Exactly. In order for polygraphy to continue to have utility for getting admissions/confessions, government must promote public belief in a lie. The FBI's own leading expert on polygraphy, Dr. Drew C. Richardson, wrote in a memo to the director of the Laboratory Division that "a technique which has no diagnostic value would require such a universal bluff and disinformation campaign as to be impractical, if not comical, to continue over a period of time...." You'll find the full memo on this website at:

http://antipolygraph.org/hearings/senate-judiciary-1997/richardson-25-10-99.shtml

One of the main purposes of AntiPolygraph.org is to publicly expose the bluff and disinformation campaign of which Dr. Richardson spoke.

[Ray Latimer]

There's that phrase again. "being strapped to a polygrapg machine" I used to bust out laughing every time I heard this statement,Usually from someone who failed a polygraph examination.  It's sad that that the anti-polgraph proponents must resort to fear and scare tactics.  I wonder if these agents were strapped to the cardiograph machines and the blood pressure monitors during their physical examinations.  Seriously do you really know any polygraph examiners who "strap" the subject to a machine or chair or anything. I have been doing polygraph examinations for 20 years and I have never "strapped" anybody to anything. What school did these sadists go to? certainly not NTC. If that was your experience, than I do not blame you for your anti polygraph position.

This is my third attempt at posting a note on this forum, hopefully I will do it right this time.
Believe it or not I really enjoy your forum, I believe in "knowing the enemy"

Ray Latimer
a proud NTC graduate

[George W. Maschke]

Ray,

You wrote in part:

There's that phrase again. "being strapped to a polygrapg machine" I used to bust out laughing every time I heard this statement,Usually from someone who failed a polygraph examination.  It's sad that that the anti-polgraph proponents must resort to fear and scare tactics.

The phrase "strapped to polygraph machines" appeared in CBS News correspondent Jim Stewart's report (see the 2nd message in this thread). It was Mr. Stewart himself who used the expression, not any "anti-polygraph proponents." It seems reasonable to suppose that the phrase is based on the image of the pneumo tubes that are fastened ("strapped") around the examinee's chest and abdomen. It could also be said that the cardio cuff is "strapped" around one's arm and that the GSR electrodes are "strapped" around one's fingers. In any event, I don't think your criticism of the phrase "strapped to a polygraph machine" detracts from the content of Mr. Stewart's report.

You also wrote:

This is my third attempt at posting a note on this forum, hopefully I will do it right this time. Believe it or not I really enjoy your forum, I believe in "knowing the enemy"

Yes, your post came through just fine! If you additionally choose to register with the message board (see the "Register" button in the upper right-hand corner of this page), you'll also have the option of going back and editing your posts and exchanging private messages with other registered users. I'm glad you enjoy this forum, and welcome your participation.

[Jane Doe III]

  It's nice to know that Mr. Latimer considers us "THE ENEMY". It's no shock that he has been ruining peoples lives for the past 20 years with his machine and that he probably prejudges most of his examinees prior to the actual test. Is there anyone you don't consider "The Enemy" that walks through your doors for a polygraph?

[Nate. (Guest)]

"Seriously do you really know any polygraph examiners who "strap" the subject to a machine or chair or anything"

I don't know what kind of examiner you are but I've been examined by 3 different polygraph examiners for pre-employment. (Passed first one, false positive on second, then passed third....real accurate results huh?).  Each time I was "strapped" by two cords around my upper chest and lower abdominal.  Along with my fingers being strapped down and had a blood pressure strap on my arm that he made it go so tight that my hand went blue and numb, he said that was normal!!! After each phase of questions, we had to stop and let the blood back into my arm!  If that's not being strapped in than I don't know what is?  What's your form of examination?  Looking into a crystal ball?

[Ray Latimer]

Jane Doe lll, hello
you are right!  I absolutely do prejudge every examinee.  Every person that walks into my office is considered (prejudged) to be truthful.

Please allow me to restate my statement re: "Know the enemy".  I do not have an enemy in this world, I was referring to the enemies of the POLYGRAPH not the POLYGRAPHIST.
Everybody has the right to an opinion and the absolute right to express it.

Ray L.

[Ray Latimer]

Nate,
GET A LIFE!! I suppose it all comes down to what the definition of "is" is.

Ray L.