CIA secret prisons leaker fired

[Random]

Ah, but everything's a negative until it's tested. That some of those negatives which are false doesn't make the polygraphs ineffective. The polygraph is a terrible tool for determining truth telling. But it's still a powerful investigative tool, when used by a skilled examiner.

The only real function that it serves is one of intimidation. If a police officer lies to a suspect and tells him that they have a witness who can place them on a particular street at a particular time, and the suspect then tries to explain what he was doing there, then the lie has extracted information. If a police officer tells a suspect that he flunked his polygraph, regardless or whether he did or not, then he might confess to something.

The catch is that in order for it to work they have to convince large portions of the population that this thing works, and inevitably some of the people they convince are law enforcement officers. These people start to use the polygraph not as an intimidation tactic, but as a way of determining if the suspect is telling the truth. Thus into the realms of madness they go...

 

[Rob Lister]

In short, it's a bunch of raging quackery...

quackery is the wrong word. fraud is closer but perfect either.

it may deserve its own word.

it works, but not for the advertised reasons and not always for the admitted intent. interrogation/smearing is its strong suit. actual 'lie detecting' is decidedly not.

 

[jj]

quackery is the wrong word. fraud is closer but perfect either.

it may deserve its own word.

it works, but not for the advertised reasons and not always for the admitted intent. interrogation/smearing is its strong suit. actual 'lie detecting' is decidedly not.

Ok, I don't know the word to use, either. As a bluffing mechanism, it may work on people who don't know that it's a crock thereof and highly composted...

 

[Dark Jaguar]

The issue is you might intimidate someone into lying to protect themselves. And, since you can't tell if they are telling the truth out of fear of the consequences of lying, or lying out of fear of being accused of a crime they didn't commit, then the lie detector has failed utterly.

The fact is, confessions revealed under intimidation aren't proper evidence. "I swear, even though you didn't do it, SAY you did, you'll just get a slap on the wrist and I promise you won't go to jail." This is why all interviews need to be recorded in their entirety, and I say with a video recorder, not a cheap tape deck (it makes it easier to detect editing).

 

[Manny]

interrogation/smearing is its strong suit. actual 'lie detecting' is decidedly not.

The other thing it does, in the hands of a good investigator, is identify, magnify and even create "tells." A poker player could never stand up in court and say, "Your honor, I knew he was drawing to a straight because his left temple pounded a little faster than his right" and for good reason. And if a person has no "tells," the polygraph examiner is at sea, just as is the poker player. But if he does, he doesn't want to play poker with that guy and he doesn't want to be on that examiner's machine.

 

[jj]

The other thing it does, in the hands of a good investigator, is identify, magnify and even create "tells."

Even when they don't exist and there is nothing to tell. That's part of the problem.

 

[Mephisto]

It makes me feel so reassured to know that national security agencies believe the polygraph is effective.

They were impressed at results they've seen on Maury Povich's show.

 

[BPSCG]

I got three paychecks that say that the CIA had a lot more on her than just a polygraph.

BTW, for all of you who condemn polygraphs as inaccurate, let me know when you've had one, okay? I applied for a job with a U.S. intelligence agency when I was fresh out of college, and a polygraph was part of the hiring process. There were no "gotcha" questions. The examiner told me every question he was going to ask me, before the polygraph, and I answered them. We discussed any ambiguities. For example, he asked if I had ever used any illegal drugs. Well, hell, I went to college in the 1960's and 70's; we were all getting stoned. So I answered "yes," and we talked about it, and he said, "Fine, we assume nobody applying for a job here is a perfect angel." We discussed what drugs I had used (a very short list), and when we were done, he told me, "Okay, the question I will ask you will be, 'Other than what we have already discussed, have you ever used any illegal drugs?'"

We went down the whole list of questions he was going to ask me, and for every single one, he repeated to me what the actual question would be after I was hooked up. There was no element of surprise involved; he told me that during the exam, he would not ask the questions in the same order that we had already discussed, but the questions would be the same.

FWIW, I had a bad reaction to one of the questions when I suddenly realized that this was not a "baseline" question; miss this one and you can kiss the job good-bye. When the exam was done, we talked about it, discussed what had happened. We then ran the exam two more times - this was standard procedure - and while I did better on that particular question, I knew I'd still had a bad reaction to it.

Anyway, yeah, in my case, the exam was a false positive (and I obviously didn't get hired), but if anyone tells you these things are conducted so as to spring a trap on an unsuspecting victim, he doesn't know what he's talking about. At least if the exam is conducted by someone who knows what he's doing.

FWIW II: I know people who work at the CIA. Everyone there undergoes polygraphs regularly, and my contacts have told me the procedure for my exam was similar.

 

[Rob Lister]

I got three paychecks that say that the CIA had a lot more on her than just a polygraph...

...For example, he asked if I had ever used any illegal drugs. Well, hell, I went to college in the 1960's and 70's; we were all getting stoned. So I answered "yes,"...

And that is the power of the examination. You would have been unlikely to have admitted such (in applying for such a job) had the polygraph psychology not been in place. For example, if you had never heard of a polygraph and had no idea of how it related to the questions asked, likely there would be zero measurable response.

I read a website that taught you, step by step, how to 'beat' an actual polygraph such that you could negate 'hot spots' (term escapes me) or emotionally charged natural responses. Step breathing was, iirc, the method.

I hunted but my google factor is low today.

 

[Mark]

I got three paychecks that say that the CIA had a lot more on her than just a polygraph.

BTW, for all of you who condemn polygraphs as inaccurate, let me know when you've had one, okay?

I had one many years ago and lied about two things (they were unimportant and none of your business; I came up in the late 60s/early 70s)...they believed me completely. It wasn't even that difficult. I will grant, though, that the person giving it was a company security guard.

 

[Tony]

Oh, and some RedStaters are already calling for his execution.

There should be laws against red-necks using computers.

 

[George Maschke]

I'm a co-founder of AntiPolygraph.org, a non-profit, public interest website dedicated to exposing and ending waste fraud and abuse associated with the use of polygraphs and other putative lie detectors. While polygraphy has no scientific basis and zero diagnostic value as a test for truth versus deception, it can be useful as an adjunct to interrogation. People who can be convinced that the polygraph can see their souls sometimes make admissions/confessions that they might not have made absent the magical box.

Whether the polygraph can be credited for exposing Mary McCarthy as a leaker is not yet clear. It's possible that she had already been identified as a probable leaker by other means, and that the polygraph was used simply to help get a confession. CIA polygraphers have in the past reportedly complained about being ordered to "fail" certain people. Perhaps time will tell.

The Mary McCarthy story has been blogged on AntiPolygraph.org here and there is a discussion thread here.

Those interested in how to fool the polygraph will find a detailed explanation in our e-book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (1 mb PDF).

 

[BPSCG]

I read a website that taught you, step by step, how to 'beat' an actual polygraph such that you could negate 'hot spots' (term escapes me) or emotionally charged natural responses. Step breathing was, iirc, the method.

Um, what, you think the polygraph can't detect when you stop breathing? That was exactly what I did when I blew mine, and the first thing the examiner told me: "Yeah, you started holding your breath while you answered that question..." I hadn't even been aware I was doing it.

 

[Rob Lister]

step, not stop

 

[BPSCG]

step, not stop

Oh. Okay. Well, I stopped. What is "step breathing," anyway?

 

[BPSCG]

Did Mary McCarthy Send Joe Wilson to Niger?

Conspiracy theory of the day...

 

[Rob Lister]

Oh. Okay. Well, I stopped. What is "step breathing," anyway?

paying attention to how you breath; start shallow and increasing each breath slightly more than the last...then start over. I guess the theory is, if you pay attention to it, you won't 'stop'. It could be woo for all I know.

 

[BPSCG]

It's just now breaking, so very few details online. Here are a few reports:

Some details emerging:

• Mary McCarthy: … began her government service as an analyst, then manager, in CIA’s Directorate of Intelligence, holding positions in both African and Latin American analysis. [I think this was 1984 to 1991].1991 to 2001: National Security Council

• Joe Wilson: U.S. Ambassador to the [African ]Gabonese Republic 1992 to 1995…Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for African Affairs at the National Security Council from June 1997 until July 1998

They served on the NSC together with the same portfolio (Africa)?! And she was the CIA’s Africa analyst at the time ole Joe was down there?!

Link.


If this is as it appears to be at first blush - and there is certainly a lot that is unknown at this point - you have to ask if it's possible that the same person who sent Joe Wilson to Africa was the same person who leaked national security information to the Washington Post.

I wonder why the MSM isn't all over this like it was on, say, Scooter Libby. Or even Martha Stewart. At least in this case, it looks like a real crime was committed.

 

[Mephisto]

I'm a co-founder of AntiPolygraph.org, a non-profit, public interest website dedicated to exposing and ending waste fraud and abuse associated with the use of polygraphs and other putative lie detectors. While polygraphy has no scientific basis and zero diagnostic value as a test for truth versus deception, it can be useful as an adjunct to interrogation. People who can be convinced that the polygraph can see their souls sometimes make admissions/confessions that they might not have made absent the magical box.

Whether the polygraph can be credited for exposing Mary McCarthy as a leaker is not yet clear. It's possible that she had already been identified as a probable leaker by other means, and that the polygraph was used simply to help get a confession. CIA polygraphers have in the past reportedly complained about being ordered to "fail" certain people. Perhaps time will tell.

The Mary McCarthy story has been blogged on AntiPolygraph.org here and there is a discussion thread here.

Those interested in how to fool the polygraph will find a detailed explanation in our e-book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (1 mb PDF).

Why thank you, George!

Very interesting material, and I'll have to admit I was a little dismayed that the thread had been (effectively) derailed so the subject became the polygraph rather than whether or not a government employee can be fired for blowing the whistle on an illegal government operation.

It's amazing how this administration can release the name of a CIA agent and make various claims about WHY she shouldn't be considered an "active" agent, but when the whistle is blown on even MORE human rights abuses the secrecy of the CIA becomes all important.

In my eyes, Mary McCarthy should be seen as an American hero instead of as a dangerous security risk. I wonder how well Condi Rice will be able to speak with conviction the NEXT time she tells the world, "WE DO NOT TORTURE!"

(edited to add) Welcome to the forums, George. I hope you stick around, I'm sure your expertise with polygraphs will be useful (and appreciated) during the next round of "disgruntled employees" who are bringing to light things we shouldn't be doing.

 

[varwoche]

Some details emerging: Link.


If this is as it appears to be at first blush - and there is certainly a lot that is unknown at this point - you have to ask if it's possible that the same person who sent Joe Wilson to Africa was the same person who leaked national security information to the Washington Post.

I wonder why the MSM isn't all over this like it was on, say, Scooter Libby. Or even Martha Stewart. At least in this case, it looks like a real crime was committed.

Next you're going to be saying that Kevin Bacon did it.

(Surely you jest. Right?)