What if question (re: FBI polygraph)

[anon02]

I recently got a letter from the FBI saying I do not qualify for a polygraph retest. Back in the summer I took and "failed" the exam. The original rejection letter claimed I made an "admission" after the exam and that my results were not within acceptable parameters.

Before the exam I told the tester I had been in rooms where pot had been smoked, but had never inhaled. He cut me off and said he was not interested in any situations unless I used drugs. I then went through the test and afterwords he interogated me. I admitted to once putting a pot pipe to my mouth, but never inhaling (which was the worst I ever did). That was my "admission" even though in my mind it had been disclosed before the exam in my previous statement.

Anyway, if I had simply said I put a pot pipe to my mouth BEFORE the exam would the FBI then just disqualify for "using" drugs. Would I still have been screwed? Was I doomed either way or do you think they would have disregarded the one pot-related situation?

[polylawman]

Ok, President Clinton. That almost worked for him because he was President.
One important fact here is that you lied. First you say you never tried it then you say you didn't inhale. The FBI knows that people your age (average age of a new applicant is 25) have done some partying. Thats normal. If you have tried pot more than 15 times then , for FBI standards , your out.
You got bounced because you lied. The FBI takes a zero tolerance to those who lie.
Sorry for the bad expierience.

[anon2]

OK. That is a elementary way to look at it. "I lied" but so did the polygrapher when he said he did not want to hear about instances unless I used marijuana. I guess this is how law enforcement deals with polygraphs, because I know the CIA and NSA would have given me a second chance. I told the f-king polygrapher before the exam that I had been in situations where I was exposed to pot, but had never inhaled it. The bottom line is we are talking about a miniscule instance. Anyway, I'll be making 7 times what this FBI support position paid once I am done with law school, so forget government civil service jobs.

[George W. Maschke]

anon02,

Note the cynical, accusatory mind of a polygrapher at work in Polylawman's smug, accusatory reply to you. When he concludes, "Sorry for the bad expierience [sic]," you can be sure he isn't.

When you began to tell your polygrapher about your previous contact with drugs, he cut you off. Then in the "post-test" interrogation, when you provide further details, this information is used to portray you as a liar. I believe that the polygrapher's conduct in cutting you off during the "pre-test" phase while you were telling him about a matter that concerned you regarding a relevant question was completely inappropriate.

In any event, I suggest that you file a Privacy Act request for your complete FBI file, including the polygraph report and charts. See Chapter 5 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector for suggestions on how to proceed. FBI polygraphers have in the past exaggerated and even fabricated admissions, so it is important that you know what admission(s) your polygrapher may have attributed to you.

You may also wish to contact attorney Mark Zaid <ZaidMS@aol.com> about possibly joining the ongoing federal polygraph lawsuits that he is litigating. Apart from e-mail, you can also reach him at (202) 223-9050.

On a final note, Polylawman's claim that "The FBI takes a zero tolerance to those who lie" is untrue. The FBI expects applicants to lie with regard to the probable-lie "control" questions that it uses in its pre-employment (and post-employment) polygraph screening examinations. Among the matters about which FBI applicants are expected to lie is whether or not they have ever driven under the influence of alcohol.

[Batman (Guest)]

Once again we chose to blame the polygraph examiner for are past and present mistakes.

anon02 states, "I had been in rooms where pot had been smoked, but had never inhaled..." and "I admitted to once putting a pot pipe to my mouth, but never inhaling..."

So when asked if he had ever used illegal drugs he proceeds to tell the examiner about being around pot but never inhaling.  I guess he just held his breath the whole time.  But the examiner says he is not interested about the times anon02 has simple been around it, he wants to know has he ever used it.  So anon02 says what, "No"?  Then he fails and adds a little info by now saying he has had a pot pipe in his mouth, but again never inhaled.  A slight difference from simply being in a room where pot was being smoked.  Does anyone really doubt that anon02 has in fact smoke a little of the funny weed?

So he holds out, and who is to blame, the polygraph examiner of course, HE CUT ME OFF!  And what advice does he get from Mr. M, sue the bastards!  It's not your fault that you did a little drugs and then decided to lie about it when asked.  And how dare this agency expect you to be truthful when in fact they want you to be dishonest during your polygraph exam.  Great comparison George.  You sure can put a good twist on things.

Yup, why woufd anyone want to portray anon02 as a liar?  How unfair.  I guess the simple fact that he lied about his drug use (yes, I'm making the quantum leap that anon02 did in fact inhale) certainly does not qualify him as a liar.  On the other hand, the polygraph examiner, well, he's probably one of the biggest liars known to man.

Batman

[Anonymous]

Batman,

You write:

...On the other hand, the polygraph examiner, well, he's probably one of the biggest liars known to man...

Biggest, perhaps....most consistent, definitely!  How many occupations can you cite that require a participant to lie each and every time he performs his chief function (i.e., give polygraph exams in your case)??  Even politicians and a used car salesmen occasionally lapse and find themselves in the midst of the truth  

[Batman (Guest)]

What about the substance of the issue Anonymous?  Who do we blame here for anon02's failings?  In this particular instance is the polygrah examiner at fault, is it the agency doing the hiring, or does anon02 shoulder responsibility for his actions?  

He chose to lie during the hiring process (regardless of what steps that process included), and he put his application in question due to his lie.  So should he file against the agency?  Should he jump up and down about how unfair the system is?  Should he scream and yell about the big, bad polygraph examiner who had the audacity to "CUT HIM OFF"?

Or should he accept responsibility for his actions, and maybe next time try telling the whole truth, right from the start?

Apparently a novel concept for some who offer advice on this site.

Batman

[Anonymous]

Batman,

Because anon2 would have no motivation to lie (a single time usage (inhaled or otherwise) of marijuana would not necessarily be a violation of FBI drug-usage guidelines (would not be if said occurrence was more than three years in the past)), I tend to give some credibility to his claim of not initially being allowed to tell his story unimpeded (having been cut off).  Additionally I find it conceivable that a situation might exist in which a young person who had no interest in drug use but who wanted to retain the "respect" of his drug-using peers might (if placed in the awkward situation of being asked to share in the activity) might (thinking he was accomplishing both purposes) place a pipe in his mouth and not inhale.  This is one more case where a videotape of what transpired during the polygraph examination would be useful in determining whether the fault for a lack of timely full disclosure lay at the feet of the examinee or the examiner and continued evidence for why this practice (audio/videotaping) should be mandated.  

[Fair Chance]

What about the substance of the issue Anonymous?  Who do we blame here for anon02's failings?  In this particular instance is the polygrah examiner at fault, is it the agency doing the hiring, or does anon02 shoulder responsibility for his actions?  

He chose to lie during the hiring process (regardless of what steps that process included), and he put his application in question due to his lie.  So should he file against the agency?  Should he jump up and down about how unfair the system is?  Should he scream and yell about the big, bad polygraph examiner who had the audacity to "CUT HIM OFF"?

Or should he accept responsibility for his actions, and maybe next time try telling the whole truth, right from the start?

Apparently a novel concept for some who offer advice on this site.

Batman

Dear Batman,

I have never advocated nor endorsed lying on any part of any application.  We both know that in order to pass a pre-screening polygraph that the examiner has to get the examinee to lie on the control questions in order to "pass" the test.  Even knowing this, I have never endorsed an applicant to falsify applicant information.

I have never used drugs nor do I believe that any law enforcement officer should but this is my personal opinion.  If the examiner in this case let his personal bias overide the actual drug policy of the FBI, it is not right.

I have signed the FBI policy many times during my application.  A good examiner should ask if the applicant has ever violated the FBI drug policy after explaining it word for word to the applicant.  The specific question "Have you ever used drugs?" over extends the intent of the policy.  The only time that a one time use can disqualify an applicant under any conditions is if he was in a position of responsibility in government or law enforcement at the time of the incident or use of any drug within the last ten years other than "where pot had been smoked or putting a pot pipe to one's mouth."

At no time during the application process does any paperwork ask you if you have done drugs.  At no time during the interview process does anyone ask you specifically if you have done drugs.  An applicant is only asked if they clearly understand the drug policy and signs that they have not violated the policy.

There is more to this situation then meets the eye in this story.  Without a videotape to review which came first, the polygraph accusation or the admission before the polygraph, it is a very blurry story indeed.

If the session had been videotaped one of two things would be happening right now:
A)  The examiner could prove that the applicant never tried to admit to drug use or clarify his extent of usage and confessed after being interrogated (witnessed by the videotape).
B)  The examiner poorly worded  the question or did not allow the examinee to clarify the drug use which was within FBI policy guidelines.

I have defended polygraph examiners if what they do is within the policies of the agencies they work for. I have been attacked by opponents to my ideas comparing my argument to the "Nuremberg Defense" which did not sit well with them.  I do so because as a law enforcement officer, I am obligated to enforce all laws and policies regardless of my personal opinions.  I only hope that the Special Agent administering this test did not allow his personal bias to interfere with the FBI's intended policy.

Regards.

[Skeptic]

What about the substance of the issue Anonymous?  Who do we blame here for anon02's failings?  In this particular instance is the polygrah examiner at fault, is it the agency doing the hiring, or does anon02 shoulder responsibility for his actions?  

He chose to lie during the hiring process (regardless of what steps that process included), and he put his application in question due to his lie.  So should he file against the agency?  Should he jump up and down about how unfair the system is?  Should he scream and yell about the big, bad polygraph examiner who had the audacity to "CUT HIM OFF"?

Or should he accept responsibility for his actions, and maybe next time try telling the whole truth, right from the start?

Apparently a novel concept for some who offer advice on this site.

Batman

I would submit that it's more likely a novel concept to an acknowledged cynic such as yourself that the guy could be telling the truth, Batman.  For myself, his story is plausible and without any corroborating information, it's impossible to know for sure.  Allegations (proven and otherwise) of polygrapher misconduct are not exactly unheard-of.

If his story is true, then the polygrapher clearly acted incorrectly (barring any discussion of whether the polygraph should be used for screening in the first place, of course).

Skeptic

[anon02]

Batman: all the polygrapher had to do was ask me about the specific instances where I had been in rooms with pot smoke. I would have gladly told the SOB what occured BEFORE the exam. The fact that he caught me off on this question and several of the control questions just made me shut up until AFTER the test. A profession examiner would not do this. Bottom line.

The fact is FBI polygraphers are mostly stereotypical law enforcement donut boys. Anyone who spends at most 2 hours a day at work (i.e. lying to honest job applicants) and the rest of the day reading newspapers is a loser in my book. The only people who still support the polygraph are these worthless donut boys who would be running gypsy mind reading shops in New Orleans if Congress abolished or minimized the polygraphs use.

[anon02]

"Does anyone really doubt that anon02 has in fact smoke a little of the funny weed?"


In fact, I have never been able to inhale smoke so how the hell can I have inhaled weed? I have never used marijuana, unless you consider putting a pot pipe to my mouth "inhaling."

Give me 7 more years and I'll be an Assistant U.S. Attorney having FBI Agents bring me donuts and sandwiches from local shops.

[anon02]

"Or should he accept responsibility for his actions, and maybe next time try telling the whole truth, right from the start?"

I did by telling the examiner I had been in rooms where pot was present but had never inhaled it. Maybe I should have just employed countermeasures like perhaps 10-20% of successful FBI applicants and that would have been more ethical right?

At most we are talking about a 22 year old kid putting a pot pipe to his mouth on ONE occasion and not inhaling.

[The_Breeze]

Anon02
Goodness, you seen positively overcome with anger at your once chosen profession.  Did you get the warning yet from the guards here about casting personal, small minded comments? You may yet.  Skeptic, anonymous...no high ground advice for this poster?
Donut remarks and assumptions that an FBI polygrapher is working 2 hours a day is based on what exactly? your great experience in the field?  In seven years, you may be merely still an angry young lad blaming others for your own personal failure.  And as to the smoking gun of your polygrapher cutting you off, its pretty standard that when someone begins to rationalize, or bring in distracting detail (often intentionally) unrelated to the issue, a detective may firmly steer you back to the point.  If I was asking you about personal use, and you started to tell me how you have seen it done, or that your uncle died of an overdose, I would of done what your polygrapher did.  Interview a couple hundred story tellers and you will understand.
I think with your new found antipathy twords law enforcement you will make a fine attorney!
And by the way, cops dont like donuts anymore-we go for starbucks.

[Fair Chance]

And by the way, cops dont like donuts anymore-we go for starbucks.

Dear Breeze,

Welcome back, are you tired of running in the woods chasing Bambi or is your freezer overflowing with venison that you can't handle anymore?  I prefer the French-Vanilla in my Starbucks!  You know where I stand but I do also get tired of the donut fetching stuff.  I do wish we could see a videotape of this particular episode.  

This is an excellent example of how a videotape could quickly exonerate the examinee or examiner.

I do admire the fact that you do videotape all of your exams.

Regards.