Re: Polygraph Screening

["P. O. Johnson" <pojhome@FLASH.NET>]

Mr. Maschke seems to think that our government should employ only
"scientific" methods and procedures such as background investigations to
verify that employees holding high national security clearances have not
violated and are not violating their sworn oaths. I regret to inform him
that the security agents who conduct these investigations (and the rumors
and lies that find their way into their reports) are far less believable and
are given far less weight than a regular poly exam by a trained and
experienced examiner.

He also laments the fact that our government lies to and deceives its
employees in its effort to check the employee's honesty and reliability.
Would he prefer that our national security agencies be as forthright and
caring with its employees as, say, Microsoft (or even Collin County College)
is to its employees? Come into the real world, George.

I think I will not read your open diatribe to Secretary Richardson. In my 35
years of undergoing poly exams while protecting your right to use such
misstatements and exaggerations in your attacks on our government, I became
all too familiar with your techniques.

I retract my comparison of your garbage with the KGB's garbage. Theirs is
not as dangerous -- most folks have their guards up when they read it. Yours
is more insidious because your readers are not forewarned.

poj

----- Original Message -----
From: "George Maschke" <gmaschke@COMPUSERVE.COM>
To: <PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu>
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 1999 10:06 AM
Subject: Re: Polygraph Screening

> Yes, Mr. (Ms.?) Johnson, I am indeed quite disturbed that national
security agencies of our (American) government resort to lying to and
deceiving their employees in addition to the general public.
> Since you ask my opinion: no, I do not believe the government should
simply take the word of employees with security clearances that they have
not compromised classified information. Ronald Reagan used to quote a
Russian proverb, "Trust, but verify." And that's what background
investigations and periodic updates are for.
> But relying on an unscientific procedure like polygraph screening actually
harms national security. Real spies are likely to pass (à la Aldrich Ames),
while the innocent are targeted for close scrutiny and sometimes lose their
jobs.
> See my open letter to Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson for a fuller
explanation of this:
> http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/people/maschke/open_letter_to_DOE.html
>
> At the time I wrote that letter, I had thought that DOE would be using a
"probable-lie" rather than a "directed-lie" polygraph screening format,
based on DOE's use of the term "Counterintelligence Scope Polygraph." (The
term had once been used exclusively for a form of probable-lie polygraph
exam.)
> In closing, I do not see any similarity between my writing and that of
"KGB garbage." If you believe anything I've written to be untrue, please
show me where I have erred, as I have sought only to report the truth
honestly (something one cannot, unfortunately, count on from the U.S.
government).
> Sincerely,
>
> George Maschke