SOCNET

Go Back   SOCNET: The Special Operations Community Network > U.S. Army Special Operations > Special Forces

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 25 May 2015, 14:22
Silverbullet's Avatar
Silverbullet Silverbullet is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bunker
Posts: 15,145
Main questions lead to other supporting points. Thats probably the extent of an explantion needed for here.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 25 May 2015, 14:28
SOTB's Avatar
SOTB SOTB is offline
Minus one, but more symmetrical....
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Clorox'ing the gene pool....
Posts: 33,020
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple36
I've used poly's and they are a tool, but I also think they are only as good as the examiner and examiners have their own biases and agendas....
+Pi....
__________________
Losing faith in humanity, one assclown at a time....
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 25 May 2015, 18:29
PACE's Avatar
PACE PACE is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Occupied Pineland
Posts: 313
No

Quote:
Originally Posted by edd1e22 View Post
Can you elaborate how 13 questions took 1.5days to complete? Did they just keep asking the same questions over and over again?
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 25 May 2015, 18:51
O_Pos's Avatar
O_Pos O_Pos is offline
NKDA
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: ----
Posts: 1,220
Full scope Poly's are the Devils Advocate. Ask me how I know. Hah.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 26 May 2015, 19:55
O_Pos's Avatar
O_Pos O_Pos is offline
NKDA
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: ----
Posts: 1,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by PACE View Post
IIRC, before the polygraph starts you are told that anything you mention, during the process, that is potentially against the law will be handed over to the FBI to investigate.
Went back through my old papers and found the exact language on a form I signed while going through a TS/SCI process.

It states:

"A polygraph examination will be required... This polygraph examination will assist the [US Gov] in verifying the background information provided by the applicant on the SF 86... and other areas of significant security interest... By executing this form, I acknowledge that I have been advised of the requirement of polygraph testing... I understand that any information I provide which evidences a potential violation of law may be provided to the appropriate law enforcement authorities."
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 26 May 2015, 20:20
CV's Avatar
CV CV is offline
Authorized Personnel
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: US
Posts: 7,726
Quote:
Originally Posted by O_Pos View Post
Full scope Poly's are the Devils Advocate. Ask me how I know. Hah.
?
__________________
It's a hipster filter. Keeps your kind out. -Jimbo
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 26 May 2015, 20:40
O_Pos's Avatar
O_Pos O_Pos is offline
NKDA
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: ----
Posts: 1,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by CV View Post
?
I was rhetorically laughing at myself.

Didn't get the job...

It was all open season. From birth to that day.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 26 May 2015, 21:20
CA SGT's Avatar
CA SGT CA SGT is offline
What could possibly go wrong?
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Here and There
Posts: 1,629
The poly starts with the written questions and answers. That's starts the mental fuck fuck before you ever get to the box.

And yeah, it's made very clear that if criminal acts are discovered during the process, it's all fair game.
__________________
This job isn't dangerous enough....I need to start milking rattlesnakes and jerking off tarantulas on my lunch hour.
________________________________
Otatsiihtaissiiststakio piksi makamo ta psswia
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 27 May 2015, 14:30
SOW_0331's Avatar
SOW_0331 SOW_0331 is offline
Firearms Industry Exile
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Someone Else's Private Hell
Posts: 2,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by CA SGT View Post
The poly starts with the written questions and answers. That's starts the mental fuck fuck before you ever get to the box.

And yeah, it's made very clear that if criminal acts are discovered during the process, it's all fair game.
The whole thing feels like using your own dick to pick a crocodile's teeth clean.

"Now we're gonna go through some questions, and if you admit to any criminal activity or lie about not committing criminal acts, we'll turn that information over so you can be prosecuted. Oh and you won't get this job, or any like it for that matter. Ever again.

Okie dokie, no pressure then, let's begin..."

Knowing my future was at the hands of someone's interpretation of how I would physically and mentally react to being dishonest, that was a pretty shitty feeling. And the polygraph dude said he was sure I was lying about something from his readings, but the four times he asked and changed the wording I had the same reaction.

Which was oddly enough the same reaction I had when specifying one of the base questions, which I know I didn't lie about. Not really a perfect science.
__________________
Weapon System Developer, Small Arms Tester/Evaluator, and Beef Terriyaki Skewering Madman

Rest Easy SOTB
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 27 May 2015, 14:39
SOW_0331's Avatar
SOW_0331 SOW_0331 is offline
Firearms Industry Exile
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Someone Else's Private Hell
Posts: 2,415
RE; the gentleman in question. It sounds like the prosecutor was basing his charges on his idea of morality in the battlefield, based on his zero experience. And it really sounds like the case was used by Army leadership to burn a witch to scare the rest who would dare get out of step.

What's missing, and seems very telling, is any reference to what was actually admitted to during the poly. No actual quotes and most noticeably, no context. From the polys I've done, admittedly few, the follow-up questions to an original might warrant an answer that, on its own out of context, could appear very damaging.

Fuck that vindictive little prosecutor twat. He sounds like one of those politically motivated assholes who thinks he knows how to fix everything that isn't broken.
__________________
Weapon System Developer, Small Arms Tester/Evaluator, and Beef Terriyaki Skewering Madman

Rest Easy SOTB
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 27 May 2015, 15:56
Chris-Harper's Avatar
Chris-Harper Chris-Harper is offline
Un-confirmed User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Cajun Country
Posts: 1,269
There's a reason why polygraph results are inadmissible as evidence in court.
__________________
Looking for that red cup of feel right - steve
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 27 May 2015, 17:38
Dangerous's Avatar
Dangerous Dangerous is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 1,239
And friend of mine used to do polies for the FBI in the early '70s on suspects. I asked him one time how accurate were they. He responded that he always asked the agent how he wanted it to come out...
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 27 May 2015, 18:41
portn010 portn010 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Kansas City, Missouri
Posts: 25
Out of my lane as far as it's usefulness in national security employment screening goes but in criminal investigations, I've always understood it to be a useful tool in interrogating someone who believes their lies can be detected, as opposed to actually detecting deception.

Basically, people believe that their lies will be detected so they make admissions against their interest, hoping that honesty will earn them points even though the stuff they are admitting to is criminal.

Wikipedia (so grains of salt, etc) sums it up thusly
"The accuracy of the polygraph has been contested almost since the introduction of the device. In 2003, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued a report entitled "The Polygraph and Lie Detection". The NAS found that the majority of polygraph research was "unreliable, unscientific and biased", concluding that 57 of the approximately 80 research studies that the American Polygraph Association relies on to come to their conclusions were significantly flawed. These studies did show that specific-incident polygraph testing, in a person untrained in counter-measures, could discern the truth at "a level greater than chance, yet short of perfection". However, due to several flaws, the levels of accuracy shown in these studies "are almost certainly higher than actual polygraph accuracy of specific-incident testing in the field".[13]

When polygraphs are used as a screening tool (in national security matters and for law enforcement agencies for example) the level of accuracy drops to such a level that "Its accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violators from innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies." In fact, the NAS extrapolated that if the test were sensitive enough to detect 80% of spies (a level of accuracy which it did not assume), this would hardly be sufficient anyway. Let us take for example a hypothetical polygraph screening of a body of 10,000 employees among which are 10 spies. With an 80% success rate, the polygraph test would show that 8 spies and 1,992 non-spies fail the test. Thus, roughly 99.6 percent of positives (those failing the test) would be false positives. The NAS concluded that the polygraph "...may have some utility"[13] but that there is "little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy.".[13]:212

The NAS conclusions paralleled those of the earlier United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment report "Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing: A Research Review and Evaluation”.[25] Similarly, a report to Congress by the Moynihan Commission on Government Secrecy[26] on national security concluded that " The few Government-sponsored scientific research reports on polygraph validity (as opposed to its utility), especially those focusing on the screening of applicants for employment, indicate that the polygraph is neither scientifically valid nor especially effective beyond its ability to generate admissions.."
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 27 May 2015, 22:37
Twogun's Avatar
Twogun Twogun is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: In the valley
Posts: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOW_0331 View Post
RE; the gentleman in question. It sounds like the prosecutor was basing his charges on his idea of morality in the battlefield, based on his zero experience. And it really sounds like the case was used by Army leadership to burn a witch to scare the rest who would dare get out of step.

What's missing, and seems very telling, is any reference to what was actually admitted to during the poly. No actual quotes and most noticeably, no context. From the polys I've done, admittedly few, the follow-up questions to an original might warrant an answer that, on its own out of context, could appear very damaging.

Fuck that vindictive little prosecutor twat. He sounds like one of those politically motivated assholes who thinks he knows how to fix everything that isn't broken.
Military lawyers, unlike civilian prosecutors, do not make charging decisions. Commanders make the decision to go forward with charges and a court martial. An Army jag can't wake up one day and decide to swear to and file charges. Impossible under the UCMJ.

Regardless in this case he is not being prosecuted criminally, so no prosecutor twat. He is going to a board of inquiry to determine if he should be retained or not, which was directed by HRC, not a prosecutor or his command for that matter.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 27 May 2015, 23:12
gavin's Avatar
gavin gavin is offline
Unemployed Stunt Double
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: On a plane...
Posts: 6,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twogun View Post
...which was directed by HRC, not a prosecutor or his command for that matter.
You are incorrect, not on the standard process, but on how things occurred in this case.
__________________
Life’s barely long enough to get good at one thing. So be careful what you get good at.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 28 May 2015, 07:40
Twogun's Avatar
Twogun Twogun is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: In the valley
Posts: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by gavin View Post
You are incorrect, not on the standard process, but on how things occurred in this case.
Who directed the BOI in this case? Wasn't directed by 3rd, USASFC or USASOC.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 28 May 2015, 22:51
Rockville Rockville is offline
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: VA
Posts: 1,109
Did CID poly the Army guy? Might be a different outcome.
In the past, CIA polygraphers are not trained at DoDPI unlike all of DOD. correct me if I'm wrong currently.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple36 View Post
If you take a CI poly in the
Army and admit to a crime, it is either referred to CID or CI for action depending upon the situation, crime, etc. I figure taking a poly is unwise if you have something to hide. If any of what has been alleged is true taking that poly and subsequently providing admission was unwise. There is a reason polygraphers have badge and credentials. Not sure about how the CIA works but I would expect they would've passed those admissions onto Army CID.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 28 May 2015, 23:10
Silverbullet's Avatar
Silverbullet Silverbullet is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bunker
Posts: 15,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twogun View Post
Who directed the BOI in this case? Wasn't directed by 3rd, USASFC or USASOC.
How do you know?
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 29 May 2015, 15:56
Twogun's Avatar
Twogun Twogun is offline
Been There Done That
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: In the valley
Posts: 34
http://www.*********.com/story/milit...e-set/25488453

Not letting me copy and paste "Army times" in the link above.

It is buried in that article referencing the board being initiated by HRC, and incorrectly stating they (HRC) would select the board members.

Last edited by Twogun; 29 May 2015 at 16:02.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 29 May 2015, 16:05
Silverbullet's Avatar
Silverbullet Silverbullet is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bunker
Posts: 15,145
There's a reason that rag can't be posted.

Your posts come across as if you have some sort of inside knowledge. Just so we're all clear, you're stating you read it in a publication?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Our new posting rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 13:32.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Socnet.com All Rights Reserved
© SOCNET 1996-2018