Less than a week after another Border Patrol agent was killed by Mexican bandits, Congress forwarded to the White House a bill that, within two years of its enactment, will result in Customs and Border Patrol heading down the same misguided path the Department of Defense took in 2007 when it comes to interrogation technology.
Forwarded five days after Bryan A. Terry’s death near Nogales, Ariz., Dec. 16, the Anti-Border Corruption Act of 2010 (H. 6472/S. 3243) not only requires CBP to conduct polygraph exams on all new applicants, but it calls for the Homeland Security agency’s employees to be retested every five years.
To the uninformed, such an effort may seem well and good. To others — including members of our nation’s elite Special Operations units who refuse to use polygraph — the measure falls short.
One of those is a former member of the Navy SEALs. He told me earlier this year that DoD’s 2007 decision to make polygraph the “only approved credibility assessment technologies” in DoD was a contributing factor in his decision to separate from the military prior to retirement age. Furthermore, he pulled no punches while sharing his opinion about the controversial topic, published here for the first time:
“In my opinion, the people responsible for blocking CVSA use should face charges and do time. This is another issue that boils down directly to money. The polygraph faction knows that CVSA would make polygraph obsolete. Too bad they can’t just accept it and shift over to become certified CVSA examiners (like me). CVSA is so much easier, effective and accurate than polygraph.”
In a Big Peace article published Dec. 9, I shared the opinions of others with whom I communicated about their field experience in the use of both the polygraph and the more effective alternative, the Computer Voice Stress Analyzer®. Some of those opinions appear below:
“We will not risk our lives on a piece of junk that was put together by eggheads who don’t have a clue about the real world.” — An “Anonymous Fort Bragg CVSA Examiner”
“My opinion based upon my observation is that CVSA is superior to the polygraph when used as a tool in the interrogation process. Consequently, I conclude that those who wish to remove CVSA from the “interrogator’s tool box” are more interested in protecting their turf than they are in gathering intelligence that protects the American people.” — A high-ranking interrogation official at Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility in the closing statement of an After Action Report describing results of a 30-day test of CVSA at the outpost where enemy combatants are held.
“If you can trick yourself into thinking you’re a bomber, then why can’t you trick yourself into thinking you’re not and trick that machine?” — A retired member of the Army Special Forces who used CVSA to conduct nearly 500 interrogations of enemy combatants and third-country nationals — more than anyone in the U.S. military — while serving in Qatar, Kuwait and Iraq. [Note: To see an actual example of a Defense Academy for Credibility Assessment (formerly the DoD Polygraph Institute) training scenario in which such tricks were used, click here.]
Because the legislation calling for agency to use polygraph instead of CVSA — which, by the way, is used by nearly 2,000 law enforcement agencies in the United States — was sponsored by Sen. Mark Pryor
(D-Ark.) and Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), I offer the following suggestions to these men:
“Please don’t call the Pentagon. Use the next two years (hopefully less) to learn more about this subject matter. Contact the folks in law enforcement and in the Special Forces community who are end-users like the ones I’ve interviewed. Fix this problem before it takes effect. If you need help locating them, drop me a note. Always glad to help!”
EDITOR’S NOTE: All of the individuals quoted above spoke with me on condition of anonymity in order to shield themselves from possible repercussions. Some continue to work as DoD contractors in hot spots around the world.
SEE ALSO: My previous posts about the polygraph-CVSA controversy.
Big Peace
