U.S. Embassy in Yemen Reportedly Forces Local Employees to Submit to Polygraph “Testing”

Posted by on
Embassy of the United States, Sana'a, Yemen

Embassy of the United States, Sana’a, Yemen

The Arabic-language website Nashwan News reports that the U.S. embassy in Sana’a, Yemen is forcing all locally hired staff to undergo polygraph interrogations, and that any who fail to pass will be terminated. The policy has reportedly had a severely negative effect on employee morale, with some submitting their resignations in protest. AntiPolygraph.org has e-mailed an inquiry to the embassy’s public affairs section, asking:

  • Is the Nashwan News article essentially correct?
  • Is there anything in the article with which the Embassy takes issue?
  • If indeed local employees are being subjected to polygraph screening, why has such a policy been implemented? Who ordered it?
  • Who is conducting the polygraph examinations?
  • In what language are the polygraph examinations being conducted? Is/are the polygraph operator(s) fluent in Arabic?
  • What questions are employees being required to answer?
  • Is there precedent for this? What other U.S. Embassies have enacted a similar requirement for local employees?

This post will be updated upon receipt of a response. (See update below.)

It should be noted that in 2002, the National Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, completed a thorough review (10.3 mb PDF) of the scientific evidence on polygraphy and concluded that “[polygraph testing's] 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.” There is no documentation that the polygraph has ever caught a spy, terrorist, or saboteur. Al-Qaeda’s Encyclopedia of Jihad notes that “lie detectors are nothing more than a myth to trick the accused” and an article titled “The Myth of the Lie Detector” published in an Iraqi insurgent publication explains how to countermeasure the polygraph.

AntiPolygraph.org has prepared the following English translation of the full Nashwan News article , which was originally published on Tuesday, 26 March 2013:

U.S. Embassy in Sanaa Demeans Its Yemeni Employees by Forcing Them to Submit to the Lie Detector

After a spate of wrongful terminations to which local guards at U.S. embassy facilities in Sana’a were subjected, a source close to the embassy reported that it has notified all local embassy employees without exception of its intention to subject each employee to lie detector (polygraph) testing after implementing it in a limited fashion with respect to some employees.

In an exclusive statement to Nashwan News, the source clarified that the embassy provided no justification for this measure, which has agitated all employees and made them feel that they are the objects of suspicion and doubt on the part of the embassy, in whose service most of them had spent long years without a hint of doubt with regard to any of them.

The embassy employees found no one who would listen to them after the embassy refused to meet with the Local Staff Association there, which resulted in the decision of all of the employees to dissolve the association in protest against the embassy’s refusal to even permit it to meet with embassy employees.

In protest against these wrongful and demeaning measures, a number of employees submitted their collective resignations because they felt the measures denigrate the dignity of Yemeni employees, who are known for their sensitivity to such abuse, especially as these measures were, for the first time in their professional lives, limited solely to Yemeni employees, and not their American colleagues, and as they feel that those who are subjected to such a device as this are criminals: thieves and spies. The embassy gave them no choice but to submit to the measure despite the fact that the embassy periodically refers employees to the Criminal Investigative Laboratory for a criminal records check.

The source expressed the employees’ hope that the president of the republic would intervene with the embassy to halt these immoral, demeaning measures, protecting their dignity and human rights. Moreover, this measure will result in the termination of everyone who fails to pass the test, and any employee who has a disagreement with his supervisor in the future may be threatened with a polygraph test.

This measure comes in the wake of a recent series of wrongful measures by the embassy against employees. A little over two weeks ago, approximately 50 local guards were wrongfully terminated. Afterwards, there was a clampdown on entry procedures for employees, with daily exaggerated searches before their entering the embassy compound.

It goes without saying that those who utilize this device don’t have faith in its accuracy, as it has a substantial error rate, measuring nothing more than internal bodily reactions and resulting in error merely because of anxiety and confusion, which has been grounds for its exclusion from courts in all countries and its restriction to the criminal and intelligence spheres.

Update: In an e-mail sent on Saturday, 30 March 2013, information officer Vanessa de Bruyn of the U.S. embassy, Sana’a  declined to address AntiPolygraph.org’s questions, writing, “Thank you for your email.  Unfortunately, we only deal with local press here at the Embassy.  I advise you to contact the U.S. State Department’s press office and/or Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs for more information.” We have sent our questions to the State Department’s duty press officer and will again update this post upon receiving a response.

Update 2: Nashwan News reports that U.S. ambassador to Yemen Gerald Feierstein, at a press conference convened at the U.S. embassy in Sana’a, declined to respond to a question about Nashwan News’ report that Yemeni employees are being forced to submit to lie detector testing, replying, “We do not discuss our security measures.”

Update 3: In an e-mail sent on Monday, 1 April 2013, U.S. State Department press officer Katherine M. Pfaff responds: “We do not discuss security  measures taken to ensure the security and safety of our American and Locally Employed Staff at our missions overseas.”

Update 4: Diplopundit confirms that local employees at the U.S. embassy in Sana’a have been required to submit to polygraph screening and cites documentation of polygraph screening at other diplomatic facilities. See, “US Embassy Yemen to Polygraph All Local Employees, Is $4.55M Poly-Money Well Spent?“

Federal Lawsuit Filed Against American Polygraph Association

Posted by on

American Polygraph AssociationOn Monday, 25 March 2013, the School of Polygraph Science in Phoenix, Arizona filed suit in federal court against the American Polygraph Association (APA) and its officers. The complaint stems from the APA’s revocation of the school’s accreditation on 29 January 2013 following an unannounced inspection on 5-6 November 2012. The School alleges libel, slander, disparagement [sic] of treatment, discrimination, and pain and suffering. Plaintiffs seek, among other relief, $250,000,000 in damages from the APA itself and $250,000,000 from APA officials in their individual capacities.

APA accreditation is important to polygraph schools because many governmental agencies require that any polygraph operators they hire be graduates of an APA accredited training program and state licensing boards may require that licensed polygraph examiners be graduates of an APA accredited polygraph school.

A key allegation in the suit is that the APA officer who inspected the school, Roy Ortiz, made libelous statements in his report. Ortiz has been the subject of past controversy. In 2003, he was allegedly investigated by the Los Angeles Police Department’s Internal Affairs Group “for changing polygraph reports” and in June 2007 he was allegedly demoted from his position as supervisor of the LAPD’s polygraph unit, stripped of polygraph duties, and assigned to a different facility as a records clerk.

The School of Polygraph Science also claims that it has been treated differently than other polygraph schools, noting that in 2007, an APA inspector “found 4 major violations in the Marston Polygraph Academy‘s operations, but the APA failed to take any action whatsoever against this school, nor was Marston Polygraph Academy’s Accreditation revoked by APA.” (In this regard, see Complaint Against Marston Polygraph Academy on the AntiPolygraph.org message board.) The suit also alleges that the Backster School of Lie Detection “has never been inspected by APA since APA’s inception in 1966.”

The lawsuit is Case Number CV-13-607-PHX-SPL in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The statement of complaint and accompanying exhibits may be downloaded as a 14 mb PDF file here.

AntiPolygraph.org has e-mailed APA president Barry Cushman seeking comment, and this post will be updated accordingly upon receipt of a response. While not mentioning the lawsuit, the American Polygraph Association has posted the following notice on its list of accredited polygraph schools:

*Notice Regarding the Arizona School of Polygraph Science, Inc.
On January 29, 2013, the APA Board of Directors revoked the accreditation of the Arizona School of Polygraph Science, Inc. with regard to their polygraph examiner training programs That revocation was due, at least in part, to the finding that the school failed to provide sufficient classroom instruction, using instead distance based learning for approximately four weeks of the training. This course of instruction was referred to by the school as “hybrid” classes. These hybrid classes were offered by the school without prior approval by the APA. Students who attend these hybrid classes through the Arizona School of Polygraph Science, Inc. may not have received the minimum training for polygraph examiners set out in the APA’s Accreditation Standards, Policies and Procedures and, as such, may not meet the minimum standards of training for membership in the APA. Students who have attended those hybrid classes should notify Robbie Bennett at the National Office (manager@polygraph.org) of any questions they have on this issue and/or their desire to be kept informed of APA’s efforts on this issue.
This notice is not intended in any way to indicate that prior schools offered by the Arizona School of Polygraph Science, Inc., not of the hybrid type described here, failed to meet minimum standards of training for polygraph examiners as set out in the APA’s Accreditation Standards, Policies and Procedures.
To the extent that there are any ongoing representations by the Arizona School of Polygraph Science, Inc. that their polygraph examiner training programs are currently accredited by the American Polygraph Association, such representations are inaccurate.

Update: In response to an inquiry from AntiPolygraph.org, APA President Barry Cushman replied that while he knew nothing of the lawsuit being filed, it is not true that the Backster School of Lie Detection has never been inspected by the APA and it is not true (as alleged in the statement of complaint at para. 3.30) that Roy Ortiz is not an American Polygraph Association certified inspector.

Can Polygraphs Really Keep Racists Out of Law Enforcement?

Posted by on
Shane Sullivan

Coopertown, TN police chief Shane Sullivan

News organizations across America yesterday carried an Associated Press story about how the police chief of a small town in Tennessee was using polygraphs to “weed out racists” from the hiring process:

Police Chief’s Polygraph Targets Racist Applicants

By SHEILA BURKE Associated Press
COOPERTOWN, Tenn. March 8, 2013 (AP)

A police chief hired to rebuild a tiny Tennessee department dismantled by scandal is using a lie-detector test to keep racists off his force.

Coopertown Police Chief Shane Sullivan took over the department in November, becoming the 11th chief in as many years. He was hired on the heels of a series of police scandals that for a few months left Coopertown with no police at all. Years before that, a mayor was voted out of office after the local prosecutor accused him of racism and running a notorious speed trap.

Law enforcement experts say Sullivan’s polygraph approach is unusual, though some departments use the devices for other purposes during the application process. Others try to root out bias in other ways. One polygraph expert warned that lie detectors can’t accurately predict racism for reasons that include people’s inability to recognize their own racism.

Sullivan said he doubts racists will even apply for the force if they know about the tests.

“I think the polygraph will definitely keep these people from applying,” the 39-year-old chief said.

And he believes the policy is working, because he says it’s already discouraged some applicants. “I’ve told a couple of ones about the polygraph who have not called me back.”

…

The fact that an applicant didn’t call back after being told about the polygraph requirement doesn’t necessarily mean that the applicant was a racist afraid of being caught by the lie detector. In fact, that is very unlikely to be the case. As the article goes on to explain, the polygraph question is not whether one holds racist attitudes, but whether one has committed a hate  or race-based crime. Presumably, very few law enforcement applicants, even those with strong racial biases, have committed such crimes. It’s quite possible that the applicants lost interest for other reasons, such as low pay and poor career prospects with the tiny, trouble-plagued department. Continue reading ‘Can Polygraphs Really Keep Racists Out of Law Enforcement?’ »

Do Polygraphs Tell the Truth?

Posted by on

Conor McKeever, writing for Imperial College, London’s science magazine, I, Science, asks the question and in a concise, well-researched article, answers it with a resounding “no,” concluding: “It’s time to expose the fact that lie detectors do not actually ‘tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth’ but only someone’s interpretation of the truth.” We could not agree more.

Russia Today on Polygraph Screening in the United States

Posted by on

Marina Portnaya of Russia Today (RT) reports on polygraph screening by the federal government of the United States. Those interviewed include retired CIA polygraph examiner John Sullivan, McClatchy reporter Marisa Taylor, and Professor Stephen Fienberg, who headed the National Research Council’s Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph:

Ironically, the Russian interior ministry is repeating America’s folly by requiring that Russian police candidates submit to polygraph “testing.”

Obama Administration Blows Off Criticism of Polygraph Screening

Posted by on
DNI James R. Clapper

Director of National Intelligence
James R. Clapper

 

Marisa Taylor of McClatchy Newspapers reports that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper is drafting a new national policy on polygraph screening. Excerpt:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is drawing up a new national polygraph policy in the wake of allegations that federal agencies are pushing legal and ethical limits during screenings of job applicants and employees.

The decision by National Intelligence Director James Clapper to draft a new policy comes after his office conducted a review of federal polygraph programs and after McClatchy detailed allegations of polygraph abuses. Clapper’s review found “inconsistencies” across the government that led him to order a new policy, but it also found that “all programs were operating appropriately,” Clapper’s public affairs office said in a statement to McClatchy.

But a congressman who’d asked Clapper to look into alleged polygraph abuses said the director was being “dismissive” of a more serious problem with the way the federal government conducts its screenings. In its statement, Clapper’s public affairs office said the inconsistencies “related to administrative practices, rather than the substance of the polygraphs.” The review was completed between July and August.

“This is a non-response,” said Rep. Rush Holt, a New Jersey Democrat. “I’m really concerned that throughout the intelligence community there has been an unwillingness to ask critical questions about polygraph.”

Independent national-security experts agreed that Clapper appeared to be downplaying legitimate concerns about the federal government’s use of polygraph. Several of them who read a draft of the policy obtained by McClatchy said it would do little to crack down on overly aggressive polygraph interrogations. In fact, it appears to allow agencies to continue current practices with few new requirements and may even grant agencies more latitude in some instances.

“It does not address polygraph abuses at all,” said Steven Aftergood, who runs the Federation of American Scientists’ Project on Government Secrecy. “Given that polygraph testing is not going away, a new policy should grapple directly with the problems it poses.”

McClatchy has made a draft of the proposed new polygraph policy available here. The policy takes no account whatsoever of the National Research Council’s determination that “[polygraph testing's] 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.” Instead, America’s top intelligence officer seems to think that so long as polygraph chartgazers at various federal agencies perform their rituals in a uniform manner, everything will be hunky dory.

Perhaps the most significant specific policy measure in the draft is section E.3: “A favorably completed and adjudicated polygraph examination conducted by an agency, in accordance with this directive, shall be reciprocally accepted by all other agencies.” This raises the question, if polygraphy is so reliable, then why should not an unfavorably completed and adjudicated polygraph examination also be reciprocally accepted by all other agencies?

McClatchy has also made available the non-responsive reply that Director of National Intelligence Clapper sent to Representative Rush Holt of New Jersey. Holt is one of few members of Congress with a hard science background (a Ph.D. in physics), and it is refreshing that he hasn’t been deceived by Clapper’s snow job.

McClatchy Investigative Series on Polygraph Screening

Posted by on

McClatchy Newspapers investigative reporter Marisa Taylor has published a new series of well-researched articles on federal polygraph screening programs:

Apart from numerous interviews, Taylor’s reporting is also based in part on federal records sought and obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by University of Virginia researcher Katelyn Sack. These documents may be downloaded from National Security Counselors (scroll down to the section, “Polygraphy and Polygraph Examiners”).

Taylor’s reporting also features a letter from Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ), who has a Ph.D. in physics, to Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper, asking for a briefing “on the research and development efforts underway in the [intelligence community] to move us beyond the use of such an unreliable instrument as the polygraph.” Making reference to Marisa Taylor’s earlier reporting on abuse by polygraph operators at the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), Holt also wrote to Inspector General of the United States Intelligence Community J. Charles McCullough III asking “1) whether there is any truth in these reports of polygraph abuse at NRO, 2) whether any other IC elements are using such tactics, 3) whether any polygraphers have engaged in actions in violation of any applicable laws and regulations, 4) whether the use of such tactics was ordered by any IC manager, 5) and whether polygraphers were receiving rewards, accelerated promotions or other incentives to force non-counterintelligence related information from polygraph subjects.”

The abuses documented in Taylor’s reporting highlight the need to terminate America’s misplaced reliance on the pseudoscience of polygraphy. Make-believe science yields make-believe security.

Facebook Claimant Who Passed Polygraph Arrested for Fraud

Posted by on
Paul Ceglia

Paul Ceglia, polygraph beater

In 2010, Paul Ceglia of Wellsville, New York filed a lawsuit against Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, claiming that a 2003 contract entitled him to half of Zuckerberg’s interest in the company. Ceglia passed a polygraph “test” administered on 11 June 2010 by Michael Pliszka, a retired law enforcement officer and member of the American Polygraph Association, who stated in a court filing:

The questions asked during the polygraph examination were designed to determine whether Mr. Ceglia had fraudulently forged or doctored the Agreement. After conducting three polygraph charts utilizing a Zone Comparison Technique, and review of the examination utilizing accepted criteria for analysis, it is my opinion that the examination results are classified as “No Deception Indicated.” No Deception Indicated is indicative of an individual telling the truth.

Pliszka’s statement, which includes a copy of the alleged contract between Ceglia and Zuckerberg, may be downloaded here. In a separate court filing, Ceglia quipped, “I respectfully suggest that Mark Zuckerberg undergo the same polygraph examination I have in order to expose who is really telling the truth.”

But despite passing the polygraph, on Friday, 26 October 2012, Ceglia was arrested and charged by federal authorities with attempting to defraud Facebook:

In 2010, a New York entrepreneur made an explosive legal claim: An agreement that he had with Facebook’s founder, Mark Zuckerberg, entitled him to a major stake in the social-networking giant.

Mr. Zuckerberg staunchly denied the allegation, and his lawyers insisted that the entrepreneur, Paul Ceglia, was a scam artist.

On Friday, federal authorities sided with Mr. Zuckerberg, arresting Mr. Ceglia and charging him with a multibillion dollar scheme to defraud Facebook.

Prosecutors say that Mr. Ceglia, 39, of Wellsville, N.Y., filed a sham federal lawsuit claiming to have been promised a 50 percent share of Facebook in 2003, and then doctored, fabricated and destroyed evidence to support his allegations.

“Ceglia’s alleged conduct not only constitutes a massive fraud attempt, but also an attempted corruption of our legal system through the manufacture of false evidence,” said Preet Bharara, the United States attorney in Manhattan. “Dressing up a fraud as a lawsuit does not immunize you from prosecution.”

It certainly looks  like Paul Ceglia beat the box. Which is not surprising. Polygraph “testing” has no scientific basis and is easily circumvented using simple countermeasures. Moreover, in situations such as this, a lawyer can shop his client to any number of polygraph operators under terms of attorney-client privilege, keeping any failed polygraphs secret while trumpeting any passed one as evidence of the client’s truthfulness to a gullible press and public.