Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: Polygraph Screening



Mr. Uretsky kindly obliged my request for comment on my article, "The Lying Game," and I welcome his criticism. My replies follow:

At 18:05 +0100 on 23/12/99, Jack Uretsky wrote:

Mr. Maschke's indictment of "the government" is, assuming that it
can be taken at face value, not well thought out. He presumably is
directing his anger to two parts of the executive branch, DOE and the FBI,
that operate independently of each other and have no control over each
other. DOE is itself a fragmented collection of interests, and
Richardson, the Secretary, has little control over the civil servants on a
day-to-day basis. None of these people control the many US Attorneys, who
are political appointees.
All of the above have nothing to do with the many other departments
of the government, each of which has its own parochial interests.

My purpose was not to indict "the government" per se, but rather to inform those who are, in the Department of Energy's parlance, "eligible" for polygraph screening of material lies told by the Department as well as other deception involved in polygraph screening.


I suppose that even I, as a retired military officer drawing
"retention pay", might be considered a part of "the government". Are you
atttacking me, too, George?

No, I am not attacking you or impugning your integrity. As a retired military officer, you will recall a cadet code of honor which states that "a cadet does not lie, cheat, or steal or tolerate those who do."

In every polygraph screening interrogation, the polygrapher/interrogator lies to and deceives the employee (or in the DoD, the soldier, sailor, airman, or marine). I find this intolerable. Don't you?

So I suggest that before Mr. Maschke indulges himself in another
tirade, he do some civics 101 and find out more about the entities that he
is dealing with.

I'm not sure what I've missed. You mentioned above how DOE is a fragmented collection of interests. I am and was aware of that. But again, my purpose was to inform those "eligible" for polygraph screening of the ways our government will attempt to deceive them. I consider it a civic duty.

While DOE may indeed be a fragmented collection of interests, it has but one Secretary, one security 'czar' (GEN Eugene Habiger, ret.), one chief of counterintelligence (Edward Curran), and precisely one chief of its polygraph program (David M. Renzelman).

Furthermore, part of Mr. Maschke's tirade is plain misleading. As
far a court proceedings are concerned, at least, no mention of a lie
detector test may be made in any court that I'm aware of in connection
with the guilt or innocence of an accused person. Court decisions have
made it clear that polygraph testing is unreliable.

I think you're referring to where I mention that whereas one has a right to have legal counsel present in a criminal interrogation, employees undergoing a polygraph screening interrogation enjoy no such right. Admissions made during a polygraph screening interrogation are indeed admissible in court, even though the polygraph charts and the the polygrapher's inferences based on the charts are not.

You are right that court decisions have made it clear that polygraph testing is unreliable. That's part of why I think it is a Very Bad Thing to to make decisions about national security based on them.

In sum, I ask Mr. Maschke to stop firing broadsides. If he has
individual cases of unfairness, please deal with these as individual
cases. I don't know enough about the Lee case to have an opinion, but it
appears that he will have more than adequate legal representation to fight
his battle.

I think if you look at my article again, you'll find that I did not so much fire broadsides as to point out specific istances of lying and questionable conduct by government officials. I documented my findings. I also provided information about the polygraph screening format adopted by DOE that is not widely known. And I made only passing reference to the case of Dr. Lee (whom I do believe is being scapegoated, but that was not the point of my article).

I would reiterate here that professors of physics will do well to pass on word to their students about polygraph screening in the Department of Energy.

Sincerely,

George Maschke