Should Soldiers in MI and CID be forced to take a poly?

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 05 May 2016 14:14:10 -0400

New regulations are coming out for MI and CID requiring polygraphs. To my knowledge, this has never been done. Should it?

For perspective, FBI requires 100% polygraph and most law enforcement agencies require it for gun carriers. Politicians, as we all know, aren't required to take them. wouldn't that be nice?

I am neither for nor against, but interested to hear what others opinions are.

Response by SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made May 5 at 2016 2:23 PM

SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 05 May 2016 14:23:22 -0400

I can see view points from either side of the discussion, but for my opinion I would think that it should be put to use as they are privileged with special information.

Response by CW4 Leonard White made May 5 at 2016 2:38 PM

CW4 Leonard White — Thu, 05 May 2016 14:38:53 -0400

I'm going to say yes. While not "admissible" in a court of law, the poly is a valuable tool in any CI/CID investigation. Also, if you are be assigned to a national level agency (CIA, NSA, etc) as a military intelligence service member, you will be required to take a poly. One last thing...doing the most recent wars, one of the biggest headaches military MI leaders had with getting support from national agencies was the fact that almost all tactical service members (I keep using that term because it applies to the joint nature intelligence work had become during the war and I suspect will continue to be) didn't have polygraphs and national agencies required it for their workforce (they didn't want a two-tier security system).

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made May 5 at 2016 4:08 PM

COL Jean (John) F. B. — Thu, 05 May 2016 16:08:23 -0400

LTC Private RallyPoint Member Yes, absolutely. It is strictly an administrative polygraph from which to base an opinion on a person's trustworthiness to hold certain security clearances/access. It is not a "lifestyle" polygraph and has very targeted questions geared strictly at trustworthiness.

I have undergone quite a few of those polygraphs since retiring because of my civilian occupation (primarily when I was assigned to manage para-military security forces for the DOE/National Nuclear Security Administration nuclear weapons complex research, testing, manufacturing, and storage facilities/installations).

Hillary Clinton would never be able to pass one ... Trust me on that one.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made May 5 at 2016 5:17 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 05 May 2016 17:17:00 -0400

One would hope not, given that the polygraph is based on pseudo-science, not reliable, and not admissible in our courts as legal evidence.

Then again, the military does tend to eschew science in favor of made-up data (ie, the tape test, the USMC gender integration study, etc)....

Response by SSgt GG-15 RET Jim Lint made May 5 at 2016 6:23 PM

SSgt GG-15 RET Jim Lint — Thu, 05 May 2016 18:23:17 -0400

From 1978 when I switched to from INF to Counterintelligence, until retired in 2014, poly's were not needed or required for most tactical jobs. In many strategic billets they were needed. Interesting, I do not have it handy, but I thought ODNI said we were moving away from Polys to Continuous Evaluation? My guess is that the regulation will say that personnel will be subject to taking a poly. We had a heck of a lot of problems not having enough Poly operators for standing up new cyber units. The number of people in MI makes me think that this will be a "Subject to take" vice a requirement for everyone... Why would the E-3 mostly working in the motor pool of an MI unit.... need to waste a poly operator's time.

Response by SGT Jerrold Pesz made May 5 at 2016 6:24 PM

SGT Jerrold Pesz — Thu, 05 May 2016 18:24:03 -0400

I have mixed feelings about a polygraph. Sometimes they are accurate and sometimes they are not. I have taken many of them going back to the sixties and have had no trouble lying to the polygraph. I have also seen a number of other people lie with no problems. I have also seen people get a false positive for lying when I knew that they were telling the truth. As for Hillary she is a pathological liar and could very possibly pass a lie detector test.

Response by SN Greg Wright made May 5 at 2016 7:49 PM

SN Greg Wright — Thu, 05 May 2016 19:49:58 -0400

We (Naval Crypto types) were subject to random polygraphs when I was in, though I never had to take one. I rather imagine that anyone with an SCI clearance is, across all professions.

Is that still true today, PO1 Andrew Gardiner?

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made May 6 at 2016 12:00 AM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 06 May 2016 00:00:59 -0400

LTC Private RallyPoint Member. I am not sure I see the point because on an objective basis with minimal training ( primarily relieving apprehension about the magical nature of polygraph insight ) standard polygraph exam is far too easy to defeat. Modern TMS / fMRI based disinhibition / veracity examinations are far more specific, precise, reliable, and accurate.

Response by SGT David T. made May 6 at 2016 3:16 PM

SGT David T. — Fri, 06 May 2016 15:16:09 -0400

Considering the poly cannot detect lies and only detects physiological changes based on an emotional response to the question, I would say why waste and money on it? The emotional response to a question does not actually determine if the subject is lying, only that they have a response to the question.

Response by CW3 Michael Clifford made Jan 5 at 2018 9:50 AM

CW3 Michael Clifford — Fri, 05 Jan 2018 09:50:10 -0500

I would have no problem with an examiner, trained at the DOD Polygraph Institute giving me a poly to enter CID. I cannot speak for MI examiners but I also believe they are trained at the same place. You can also anticipate a drop off of applicants, simply from fear of the test. One must also examine why the change. There has not been an influx of bad actors becoming agents in the CID.