Posted on May 5, 2016
Should Soldiers in MI and CID be forced to take a poly?
40.5K
27
23
2
2
0
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.
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.
Intelligence
CID Special Agent
Military Intelligence Basic Officer Leader Course (MIBOLC)
95 D1: CID
95D: CID Special Agent
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 10
3
3
0
LTC (Join to see) 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.
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.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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).
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
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?
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel
Is that still true today, PO1 Andrew Gardiner?
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel
(1)
(0)
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel
Probably a good thing I was never Polygraphed being a Dope Smoking Wild Child before and even slightly after signing on the Dotted Line.
(3)
(0)
PO1 Brian Austin
I took four during my career. I'm pretty sure it was because i was married to a foreign national (before US citizenship), had in laws in Philippine military and a lot of unofficial foreign travel. Red flag after red flag after red flag.
(1)
(0)
SN Greg Wright
PO1 Brian Austin - Wow, 4!! So, pretty hit-and-miss. I was 'lucky' (not that I had anything to hide, it's just that poly's are so friggen un-scientific, so subjective (to the administrator's judgement) ) I guess.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
CW4 Leonard White
Mr Lint, right before I retired, the discussions the Army MI leadership were have about requiring polys for every MI soldier made some of the same points you have made (number of soldiers involved, did junior enlisted really need to be poly, etc) along with the cost (of course the Army would have to pay for the polys). The decision that they were leaning toward and I guess they made was yes, polys were needed for every soldier with TS/SCI access.
The reason is (as I stated in another post) is during the wars there was a National/Tactical partnership that never occurred prior to 9/11. To get that partnership up and running with the National agencies, the Army had to get as many of it's MI soldiers trained up to National agencies standards...part of the requirement was to take a poly. The partnership proved to very successful so MI leaders wanted to retain that partnership and the capabilities it gives them. In order to do that, MI soldiers with TS/SCI access must be polygraphic...that's a National agencies requirement.
The reason is (as I stated in another post) is during the wars there was a National/Tactical partnership that never occurred prior to 9/11. To get that partnership up and running with the National agencies, the Army had to get as many of it's MI soldiers trained up to National agencies standards...part of the requirement was to take a poly. The partnership proved to very successful so MI leaders wanted to retain that partnership and the capabilities it gives them. In order to do that, MI soldiers with TS/SCI access must be polygraphic...that's a National agencies requirement.
(1)
(0)
SSgt GG-15 RET Jim Lint
The bottom line is that it will make MI soldiers more marketable as civilian contractors.
(0)
(0)
SPC Stephan Lindgren
I was CI in a tactical unit and never took a poly. I know a lot of people who did take a poly and didn't have access to any information any more sensitive than me. Personally I think it's a waste of money, they don't hold up in court and they don't work. In addition, the people who are actually polygraphed are the ones who know best how to beat it and also the ones who know best that they don't work. I think it's more like a check the box thing for people in sensitive positions so if s*** hits the fan later on they can say they did everything they can to screen the individual.
(1)
(0)
SPC Stephan Lindgren
CW4 Leonard White - I had a TS/SCI for 10 years and never took a poly. In fact, hundreds in my unit with that clearance never took a poly. It was only people who had that clearance AND were working in a position that granted them placement and access requiring a polygraph
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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)....
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)....
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Sir,
I don't think that is a "fair" statement regarding the Integration Testing. It was peer reviewed by SEVERAL outside sources and the conclusions "generally" supported integration (outside of 03xx).
https://www.scribd.com/doc/285174854/Marine-Corps-analysis-of-female-integration (Section 1.3)
I'd actually call this the closest to "real science" we've ever had on the subject, even if there were flaws (I'm not discounting their existence, just disagreeing about philosophy of approach).
I don't think that is a "fair" statement regarding the Integration Testing. It was peer reviewed by SEVERAL outside sources and the conclusions "generally" supported integration (outside of 03xx).
https://www.scribd.com/doc/285174854/Marine-Corps-analysis-of-female-integration (Section 1.3)
I'd actually call this the closest to "real science" we've ever had on the subject, even if there were flaws (I'm not discounting their existence, just disagreeing about philosophy of approach).
Marine Corps analysis of female integration
This document shows the Marine Corps' analysis of how integrating women into a task force focused on combat skills worked.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS - we'll agree to disagree. The study was clearly designed to support USMC perogatives. Thankfully, SECNAV saw straight through it.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
MAJ (Join to see) - I don't disagree that there was a goal in mind, however, the conclusions from the study don't actually match "the original prerogatives" (exclusion of women from CA fields). The USMC "tone" changed DRAMATICALLY post Integration Testing.
There's nothing inherently wrong having a goal in mind in science (testing a hypothesis) IF you are willing to be proven wrong. The Integration Testing came back with "mixed" results, including "No effect on Morale" (was one of the concerns), "No effect on 08xx, 13xx, 18xx OccFields" (all CA OccFields but Infantry). The test proved the USMC wrong in some regards, and identified issues (presented statistical issues supporting their case, as opposed to proving them right) in other regards.
My point is that it was scientific (as opposed to pseudo-science or "made up data" which is an inaccurate statement). It may have been biased, and goal oriented, but so is A LOT of science. There was also a lot of good data that came out of the testing, specifically since we'd just never tested it before. How can we make a valid recommendation "at all" without testing (even a biased test)?
There's nothing inherently wrong having a goal in mind in science (testing a hypothesis) IF you are willing to be proven wrong. The Integration Testing came back with "mixed" results, including "No effect on Morale" (was one of the concerns), "No effect on 08xx, 13xx, 18xx OccFields" (all CA OccFields but Infantry). The test proved the USMC wrong in some regards, and identified issues (presented statistical issues supporting their case, as opposed to proving them right) in other regards.
My point is that it was scientific (as opposed to pseudo-science or "made up data" which is an inaccurate statement). It may have been biased, and goal oriented, but so is A LOT of science. There was also a lot of good data that came out of the testing, specifically since we'd just never tested it before. How can we make a valid recommendation "at all" without testing (even a biased test)?
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
LTC (Join to see). 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.
Read This Next
-
Ask questionGet expert advice and
tips for your questions. -
Post updatePost pictures, personal updates, plans, or anything you like!
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google