Proposed Polygraph Witnesses and Questions
gmaschke at compuserve.com
Tue Feb 27 10:18:29 EST 2001
As the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (and perhaps other
Congressional committeees) prepares to discuss ways to improve security in
the wake of the Robert Philip Hanssen espionage case, we can expect that
counterintelligence professionals will be extolling the virtues of the
polygaph to them.
By calling the following witnesses, and asking the following questions,
members of the SSCI might obtain a fuller understanding of what it is they
are meeting to consider:
* FBI Supervisory Special Agent Dr. Drew C. Richardson of the FBI
Laboratory Division, to expound upon his earlier Senate testimony that
polygraph screening is completely without any theoretical foundation, has
absolutely no validity, and that anyone can be taught to beat this kind of
test in a few minutes.
* FBI Laboratory Director Donald M. Kerr, to explain why he failed to
answer Dr. Richardson's charges on grounds of science when asked in writing
to do so by Senator Chuck Grassley
* FBI Director Louis J. Freeh, to answer under oath whether it is true that
"when the FBI implemented its polygraph program in 1994, the then current
special agent class had already begun its training. Nevertheless, members
of the 1994 class were administered polygraph examinations and
approximately half the class failed. However, the FBI simply overlooked
this problem and waived the requirements of the polygraph for the 1994
class. (1st Amended Complaint in Croddy et al. v. FBI, et al.
* Former FBI Special Agent Mark E. Mallah
(http://antipolygraph.org/statements/statement-002.shtml), to talk about
his polygraph experience the intensive espionage investigation that was
launched against him after a false positive polygraph outcome.
* Dr. Sheila D. Reed, who developed the Test for Espionage and Sabotage
(http://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-002.shtml) polygraph screening
format used by DoD and DOE, but who also concluded that polygraph screening
should be stopped and was stripped of her security clearance after saying
* Defense Security Service director Gen. Charles J. Cunningham, Jr. (ret.),
to explain under oath what happened to the data collected in Dr. Reed's 3rd
Test for Espionage and Sabotage validation study (which indicated that
polygrapher bias plays a significant role in determining test outcomes).
DSS has refused to release any information about this study under the
Freedom of Information Act, but claims the amount of information withheld
consists of only two 14-page reports, suggesting that Dr. Reed's voluminous
research data and draft report have been destroyed.
* Former Department of Defense Polygraph Institute director Michael H.
Capps, to explain why he dismissed the Institute's entire scientific
advisory board in 1995;
* Aldrich Hazen Ames, to explain how he beat the polygraph while spying for
the Soviet Union/Russia. Twice.;
Since polygraph advocates like to claim that Aldrich Ames' charts actually
did show deception, and that Ames merely succeeded in sweet-talking his way
out of it, a panel of federal polygraphers chosen at random should be
convened before the assembled senators to demonstrate their amazing powers
by picking out the spy after Ames' unmarked charts are mixed with the
unmarked charts of the 100 preceeding and the 100 following CIA employees
* Former CIA lawyer Adam J. Ciralsky
talk about his polygraph experience at CIA;
* CIA Director George Tenet, to answer under oath whether it is true, as
alleged at para. 55 of Mr. Ciralsky's above-cited complaint, that "some of
the CIA's most senior officials, including Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs of
Station, have repeatedly "failed" their own polygraphs, some as often as
six times, without repercussions. These officials have remained in their
posts and have not been subjected to CIC/CEG investigations."
Intelligence Forum (http://www.intelforum.org) is sponsored by Intelligence
and National Security, a Frank Cass journal (http://www.frankcass.com/jnls/ins.htm)
More information about the IntelForum