Army general to face court-martial, possible life sentence, over sexual misconduct charges - Page 2

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Army general to face court-martial, possible life sentence, over sexual misconduct charges (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 12/25/2012 7:24:19 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The allegations are that he raped three of his subordinates. It's a he'll of a lot more than "extra-marital sex".

It doesn't become rape until they get passed over for promotion.

Kinda like not paying a prostitute.

That's fucking disgusting for you to say on a public forum.

To be quite fucking blunt, the women who accuse him have lost their careers because they came forward, as they knew they would. So it's pretty fucking absurd, and shows a complete lack of comprehension of the military's justice system and this case to make a comment like that.

Can't really evaluate that until the state of her career before the allegations is known. This wouldn't be the first instance of "mutually assured carreer destruction" after a promotion pass-over or judicial action.

No, her career is over. Even if they are 100% doing the right thing, a whistleblower in the military is signing the death certificate for their career. You have to have been in the military and see how things work to understand that. It's just how it goes.

So the idea of throwing out rape charges because they want a promotion doesn't even make sense. These women are basically ending their own careers by coming forward with these allegations.

Posted: 12/25/2012 7:28:21 AM EDT

[#2]

ALL of the accuser's fellow junior officers concur, she's full of shit.

He still chose poorly.

Posted: 12/25/2012 8:05:24 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Her career wasn't "already trashed". She "trashed" her career when she reported him.

You know the accuser's name and if sshe was on the last promotion list?

Polygraphs are absolutely, profoundly, completely, worthless for any purpose whatsoever, and inadmissible in court. There's a reason for that.

If so, why do I have to take one to get some tupes of governemnt clearance?

A polygraph measures breath rate, pulse, skin moisture, and blood pressure. It does not measure truth. It is used for CI purposes as primarily a tool of a skilled interviewer/interrogator, providing enhanced awareness of specific physiological responses in the subject. When you submit to a polygraph exam for a clearance, you are submitting to an examination process where the tester/interrogator, not the machine, will conclude if he thinks you are being deceptive. Even that is rooted in a lot of questionable nonsense, but it is a far cry from suggesting the machine says whether you lied or not.

A polygraph presented by a defense attorney as proof of anything is a bad joke. Anyone who tries to claim otherwise is... well, also a bad joke.

Merry Christmas.

Posted: 12/25/2012 9:30:12 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Her career wasn't "already trashed". She "trashed" her career when she reported him.

You know the accuser's name and if sshe was on the last promotion list?

Polygraphs are absolutely, profoundly, completely, worthless for any purpose whatsoever, and inadmissible in court. There's a reason for that.

If so, why do I have to take one to get some tupes of governemnt clearance?

You really want to argue polygraphs?

Does or does not the government administer polygraphs in investigations, in particular to clear people for access to highly sensative information? If "Polygraphs are absolutely, profoundly, completely, worthless for any purpose whatsoever," why does the federal government use them?

So yes, I really do want to argue polygraphs.

Posted: 12/25/2012 9:57:23 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The allegations are that he raped three of his subordinates. It's a he'll of a lot more than "extra-marital sex".

It doesn't become rape until they get passed over for promotion.

Kinda like not paying a prostitute.

That's fucking disgusting for you to say on a public forum.

And this, right the fuck here, is why most women join with their sons, their husbands, their brothers, and their fathers in condemning false rape claims. Because as long as there are men who are falsely accused of rape, some men will reflexively dismiss all accusations of rape.

Posted: 12/25/2012 10:03:41 AM EDT

[#6]

About damn time, the shit I have seen some Senior Officers and NCOs pull is beyond reasoning....they need to hold the tops toes to the fire.

Posted: 12/25/2012 10:26:53 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Yes, we really can.

"But she also told Huggins she finally decided to report Sinclair after finding emails exchanged with other women in his account."

Emphasis mine, source: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/06/14961775-captain-army-general-in-sex-case-threatened-to-kill-me?lite

Sinclair's defense team said the general passed a polygraph test in which he denied sexually assaulting the woman.

Emphasis mine, source: http://www2.nbc17.com/news/2012/nov/19/4/wife-army-general-believes-sexual-misconduct-charg-ar-2793652/

So please enlighten me how "we really can" know for sure this isn't the ploy of a scorned woman with an already-trashed carreer who unsuccessfully tried to flat-back her way to field grade ....

Her career wasn't "already trashed". She "trashed" her career when she reported him.

Polygraphs are absolutely, profoundly, completely, worthless for any purpose whatsoever, and inadmissible in court. There's a reason for that.

Here's where I have to disagree. She trashed her career when she had previously slept with the man willingly.

( And obviously, rape is a terrible crime, and consent during a prior sexual encounter has no bearing on what may have happened at a later time.)

We're splitting hairs at that point, but fair enough. Had she not reported it, she would likely have gone on to have a successful career.

Posted: 12/25/2012 10:28:32 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Her career wasn't "already trashed". She "trashed" her career when she reported him.

You know the accuser's name and if sshe was on the last promotion list?

Polygraphs are absolutely, profoundly, completely, worthless for any purpose whatsoever, and inadmissible in court. There's a reason for that.

If so, why do I have to take one to get some tupes of governemnt clearance?

You really want to argue polygraphs?

Does or does not the government administer polygraphs in investigations, in particular to clear people for access to highly sensative information? If "Polygraphs are absolutely, profoundly, completely, worthless for any purpose whatsoever," why does the federal government use them?

So yes, I really do want to argue polygraphs.

Because the government is full of retards who don't understand science. Next question?

See Bohr_Adam's response above for more detail.

Posted: 12/25/2012 10:31:53 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Her career wasn't "already trashed". She "trashed" her career when she reported him.

You know the accuser's name and if sshe was on the last promotion list?

Polygraphs are absolutely, profoundly, completely, worthless for any purpose whatsoever, and inadmissible in court. There's a reason for that.

If so, why do I have to take one to get some tupes of governemnt clearance?

You really want to argue polygraphs?

Does or does not the government administer polygraphs in investigations, in particular to clear people for access to highly sensative information? If "Polygraphs are absolutely, profoundly, completely, worthless for any purpose whatsoever," why does the federal government use them?

So yes, I really do want to argue polygraphs.

Federal hiring authorities use them because they can. Applicant has a questionable polygraph? Who cares, there's hundreds more where he came from.

Posted: 12/25/2012 10:39:04 AM EDT

[#10]

Even if the stories are true they will get shuffled off to TRADOC to hang out as Major, or if their lucky they might make LTC

The Gen passed the polygraph, what about his accusers.

Free

Quoted:

Quoted:
The allegations are that he raped three of his subordinates. It's a he'll of a lot more than "extra-marital sex".

It doesn't become rape until they get passed over for promotion.

Kinda like not paying a prostitute.

That's fucking disgusting for you to say on a public forum.

To be quite fucking blunt, the women who accuse him have lost their careers because they came forward, as they knew they would. So it's pretty fucking absurd, and shows a complete lack of comprehension of the military's justice system and this case to make a comment like that.

Can't really evaluate that until the state of her career before the allegations is known. This wouldn't be the first instance of "mutually assured carreer destruction" after a promotion pass-over or judicial action.

No, her career is over. Even if they are 100% doing the right thing, a whistleblower in the military is signing the death certificate for their career. You have to have been in the military and see how things work to understand that. It's just how it goes.

So the idea of throwing out rape charges because they want a promotion doesn't even make sense. These women are basically ending their own careers by coming forward with these allegations.

Posted: 12/25/2012 10:52:15 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
The allegations are that he raped three of his subordinates. It's a he'll of a lot more than "extra-marital sex".

Yep, rape Carries a slightly harsher sentence.

Posted: 12/25/2012 10:57:08 AM EDT

[#12]

He was my CDR in the 172nd

Posted: 12/25/2012 11:20:48 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

And this, right the fuck here, is why most women join with their sons, their husbands, their brothers, and their fathers in condemning false rape claims. Because as long as there are men who are falsely accused of rape, some men will reflexively dismiss all accusations of rape.

In this case, the "rape" was not reported after the first "rape". It was not reported after the second "rape".

It was reported after the alleged rape victim found evidence of the General contacting other women.

Since the General has allegedly passed a plygraph on the issue, color me Suprisingly Suspicious Skeptical Chartreuse Green.

Posted: 12/25/2012 11:27:01 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

...

See Bohr_Adam's response above for more detail.

I think he has me on ignore. It appears to be symbolic of a larger problem.

Posted: 12/25/2012 11:40:12 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

Quoted:

And this, right the fuck here, is why most women join with their sons, their husbands, their brothers, and their fathers in condemning false rape claims. Because as long as there are men who are falsely accused of rape, some men will reflexively dismiss all accusations of rape.

In this case, the "rape" was not reported after the first "rape". It was not reported after the second "rape".

It was reported after the alleged rape victim found evidence of the General contacting other women.

Since the General has allegedly passed a plygraph on the issue, color me Suprisingly Suspicious Skeptical Chartreuse Green.

http://photos.weddingbycolor-nocookie.com/p000010474-m53469-p-photo-155498/COLOURlovers-com-Chartreuse.jpg

That is the most hideous color I have seen to date.

Anyway, The general was found out to having an affair (where he has been ACCUSED of rape). These subordinates also have willingly said that they have slept with a married man. All parties have had their careers shit canned because they could not, or would not refrain from sex. To take the left road or the right, they are all fucking guilty under the UCMJ.

They should all be mowing grass and cleaning latrines until this shit gets sorted out.

Rick-O Shay, having a general coerce or force themselves upon you is a rather traumatic exterience (I do not know from experience, but lets just go with rape is bad), but the mental properties of having your career boosted may make you question whether or not to turn his sorry ass in. Perhaps it was after consenual sex, who the fuck knows? I think everyone is getting spun up and should take their Eggnogg and wait for this fuck bomb to be defused.

If her forced himself upon another person may he fucking burn. If it was consenual for all cases then may they ALL burn.

This is why we cannot have nice things in the Army.

Posted: 12/25/2012 11:51:30 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Her career wasn't "already trashed". She "trashed" her career when she reported him.

You know the accuser's name and if sshe was on the last promotion list?

Polygraphs are absolutely, profoundly, completely, worthless for any purpose whatsoever, and inadmissible in court. There's a reason for that.

If so, why do I have to take one to get some tupes of governemnt clearance?

You really want to argue polygraphs?

fair question.
If they are worthless, then why do we take them for higher clearances?

Posted: 12/25/2012 12:37:57 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:

And this, right the fuck here, is why most women join with their sons, their husbands, their brothers, and their fathers in condemning false rape claims. Because as long as there are men who are falsely accused of rape, some men will reflexively dismiss all accusations of rape.

In this case, the "rape" was not reported after the first "rape". It was not reported after the second "rape".

It was reported after the alleged rape victim found evidence of the General contacting other women.

Since the General has allegedly passed a plygraph on the issue, color me Suprisingly Suspicious Skeptical Chartreuse Green.

http://photos.weddingbycolor-nocookie.com/p000010474-m53469-p-photo-155498/COLOURlovers-com-Chartreuse.jpg

Rick, I made no representation about the General's guilt or innocence. I said most women condemn false rape claims because some men will rely on them to reflexively dismiss all accusations of rape. I said this in the context of someone here doing precisely that. If you have something to say to me relevant to my post, I'd be interested to see it; otherwise, have a pleasant afternoon.

Posted: 12/25/2012 12:40:28 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
General looks like a real goober.
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTsRAiztwTBVCvHhEJVqRNclSMSN8kK0H6WKYpikNHruFrdiK44iA

His wife however, is standing by her man...
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ0gD-puUO1yIdmFtumVH8nzWc1j59WJSw-a5ESjKD5CgeL5yZu

Standing by her man's retirement package is more like it.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Posted: 12/25/2012 12:56:11 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

Quoted:

And this, right the fuck here, is why most women join with their sons, their husbands, their brothers, and their fathers in condemning false rape claims. Because as long as there are men who are falsely accused of rape, some men will reflexively dismiss all accusations of rape.

In this case, the "rape" was not reported after the first "rape". It was not reported after the second "rape".

It was reported after the alleged rape victim found evidence of the General contacting other women.

Since the General has allegedly passed a plygraph on the issue, color me Suprisingly Suspicious Skeptical Chartreuse Green.

http://photos.weddingbycolor-nocookie.com/p000010474-m53469-p-photo-155498/COLOURlovers-com-Chartreuse.jpg

She has a consensual sexual relationship with her boss.

She finds out he's looking at other women, doesn't want to have sex with him.

He wants to have sex with her.

If he makes her have sex with him, that's rape.

I don't see what's difficult to understand.

Oh yeah, they're both idiots.

Posted: 12/25/2012 1:04:05 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Her career wasn't "already trashed". She "trashed" her career when she reported him.

You know the accuser's name and if sshe was on the last promotion list?

Polygraphs are absolutely, profoundly, completely, worthless for any purpose whatsoever, and inadmissible in court. There's a reason for that.

If so, why do I have to take one to get some tupes of governemnt clearance?

You really want to argue polygraphs?

fair question.
If they are worthless, then why do we take them for higher clearances?

Bohr_Adam covered it pretty well above. Polygraphs are an interrogation tool. They allow a trained interrogator to pretend he has some scientific basis for accusing a person of lying, thus allowing him to elicit more information from that person, assuming that person believes in the lie he is telling them. That's all it is.

Posted: 12/25/2012 1:07:28 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Quoted:

And this, right the fuck here, is why most women join with their sons, their husbands, their brothers, and their fathers in condemning false rape claims. Because as long as there are men who are falsely accused of rape, some men will reflexively dismiss all accusations of rape.

In this case, the "rape" was not reported after the first "rape". It was not reported after the second "rape".

It was reported after the alleged rape victim found evidence of the General contacting other women.

Since the General has allegedly passed a plygraph on the issue, color me Suprisingly Suspicious Skeptical Chartreuse Green.

http://photos.weddingbycolor-nocookie.com/p000010474-m53469-p-photo-155498/COLOURlovers-com-Chartreuse.jpg

That is the most hideous color I have seen to date.

Anyway, The general was found out to having an affair (where he has been ACCUSED of rape). These subordinates also have willingly said that they have slept with a married man. All parties have had their careers shit canned because they could not, or would not refrain from sex. To take the left road or the right, they are all fucking guilty under the UCMJ.

They should all be mowing grass and cleaning latrines until this shit gets sorted out.

Rick-O Shay, having a general coerce or force themselves upon you is a rather traumatic exterience (I do not know from experience, but lets just go with rape is bad), but the mental properties of having your career boosted may make you question whether or not to turn his sorry ass in. Perhaps it was after consenual sex, who the fuck knows? I think everyone is getting spun up and should take their Eggnogg and wait for this fuck bomb to be defused.

If her forced himself upon another person may he fucking burn. If it was consenual for all cases then may they ALL burn.

This is why we cannot have nice things in the Army.

One of the things a lot of people are missing here is that this junior officer was his aide. Traditionally, flag aides are the ones who make flag officer later on in their career. For her, she had a hell of a motive to do what the general wanted her to do, however distasteful she may have found it, and to put up with it for as long as she could.

Posted: 12/25/2012 1:11:08 PM EDT

[#22]

Fuck him. He could have paid escorts.

Posted: 12/25/2012 1:12:26 PM EDT

[#23]

They're not covering this up? Makes me wonder who he pissed off...

Posted: 12/25/2012 1:24:29 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:

And this, right the fuck here, is why most women join with their sons, their husbands, their brothers, and their fathers in condemning false rape claims. Because as long as there are men who are falsely accused of rape, some men will reflexively dismiss all accusations of rape.

In this case, the "rape" was not reported after the first "rape". It was not reported after the second "rape".

It was reported after the alleged rape victim found evidence of the General contacting other women.

Since the General has allegedly passed a plygraph on the issue, color me Suprisingly Suspicious Skeptical Chartreuse Green.

http://photos.weddingbycolor-nocookie.com/p000010474-m53469-p-photo-155498/COLOURlovers-com-Chartreuse.jpg

Rick, I made no representation about the General's guilt or innocence. I said most women condemn false rape claims because some men will rely on them to reflexively dismiss all accusations of rape. I said this in the context of someone here doing precisely that. If you have something to say to me relevant to my post, I'd be interested to see it; otherwise, have a pleasant afternoon.

A thousands pardons, m'lady. I assumed this comment - "some men will reflexively dismiss all accusations of rape." was directed at me. If not, I was wrong.

I have personally seen the damage that rape can do. I've personally felt the damage that wrongful accusations of rape did to me. Perhaps this colors my perspective somewhat.

Either way - Merry Christmas to you and yours.

Posted: 12/25/2012 1:26:49 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
She has a consensual sexual relationship with her boss.

She finds out he's looking at other women, doesn't want to have sex with him.

He wants to have sex with her.

If he makes her have sex with him, that's rape.

I don't see what's difficult to understand.

Oh yeah, they're both idiots.

Except she did not report the rape after the first rape. She did not report it after the second rape.

It was only after she found evidence of him seeing someone else that the "rape" flag was flown.

Allow me to fly a flag of my own ....

Posted: 12/25/2012 2:10:09 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:

And this, right the fuck here, is why most women join with their sons, their husbands, their brothers, and their fathers in condemning false rape claims. Because as long as there are men who are falsely accused of rape, some men will reflexively dismiss all accusations of rape.

In this case, the "rape" was not reported after the first "rape". It was not reported after the second "rape".

It was reported after the alleged rape victim found evidence of the General contacting other women.

Since the General has allegedly passed a plygraph on the issue, color me Suprisingly Suspicious Skeptical Chartreuse Green.

http://photos.weddingbycolor-nocookie.com/p000010474-m53469-p-photo-155498/COLOURlovers-com-Chartreuse.jpg

Rick, I made no representation about the General's guilt or innocence. I said most women condemn false rape claims because some men will rely on them to reflexively dismiss all accusations of rape. I said this in the context of someone here doing precisely that. If you have something to say to me relevant to my post, I'd be interested to see it; otherwise, have a pleasant afternoon.

A thousands pardons, m'lady. I assumed this comment - "some men will reflexively dismiss all accusations of rape." was directed at me. If not, I was wrong.

I have personally seen the damage that rape can do. I've personally felt the damage that wrongful accusations of rape did to me. Perhaps this colors my perspective somewhat.

Either way - Merry Christmas to you and yours.

Not at all, Good Sir. Never shy, if I'd intended the comment for you, I'd have quoted you instead of those I did.

I know from your posts here why the topic of false rape claims is a sensitive one for you. You should know - having been sexually assaulted twice and I'm not talking about someone brushing up against my ass in a crowded elevator - the "if it has a vagina, it's lying" attitude of some here is not one I find congenial.

And a Merry Christmas and a happy holiday season to you and those you love.

Posted: 12/25/2012 2:35:51 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Her career wasn't "already trashed". She "trashed" her career when she reported him.

You know the accuser's name and if sshe was on the last promotion list?

Polygraphs are absolutely, profoundly, completely, worthless for any purpose whatsoever, and inadmissible in court. There's a reason for that.

If so, why do I have to take one to get some tupes of governemnt clearance?

You really want to argue polygraphs?

fair question.
If they are worthless, then why do we take them for higher clearances?

You really want to ask that question, Colonel?

Posted: 12/25/2012 2:38:36 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Her career wasn't "already trashed". She "trashed" her career when she reported him.

You know the accuser's name and if sshe was on the last promotion list?

Polygraphs are absolutely, profoundly, completely, worthless for any purpose whatsoever, and inadmissible in court. There's a reason for that.

If so, why do I have to take one to get some tupes of governemnt clearance?

You really want to argue polygraphs?

fair question.
If they are worthless, then why do we take them for higher clearances?

You really want to ask that question, Colonel?

yes. i mean no.

oh god, I did it.

i'm so sorry.

i was young, i needed the money.

Posted: 12/25/2012 2:44:19 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Her career wasn't "already trashed". She "trashed" her career when she reported him.

You know the accuser's name and if sshe was on the last promotion list?

Polygraphs are absolutely, profoundly, completely, worthless for any purpose whatsoever, and inadmissible in court. There's a reason for that.

If so, why do I have to take one to get some tupes of governemnt clearance?

You really want to argue polygraphs?

fair question.
If they are worthless, then why do we take them for higher clearances?

You really want to ask that question, Colonel?

yes. i mean no.

oh god, I did it.

i'm so sorry.

i was young, i needed the money.

Posted: 12/25/2012 4:34:10 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

Quoted:
She has a consensual sexual relationship with her boss.

She finds out he's looking at other women, doesn't want to have sex with him.

He wants to have sex with her.

If he makes her have sex with him, that's rape.

I don't see what's difficult to understand.

Oh yeah, they're both idiots.

Except she did not report the rape after the first rape. She did not report it after the second rape.

It was only after she found evidence of him seeing someone else that the "rape" flag was flown.

Allow me to fly a flag of my own ....

Are you actually reading any of the articles on this?

Here's what I'm reading, tell me if I am completely out of left-field:

At first it was consensual.

After she discovered him fishing for other women it was no longer consensual.

Posted: 12/25/2012 4:40:53 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:

Quoted:
She has a consensual sexual relationship with her boss.

She finds out he's looking at other women, doesn't want to have sex with him.

He wants to have sex with her.

If he makes her have sex with him, that's rape.

I don't see what's difficult to understand.

Oh yeah, they're both idiots.

Except she did not report the rape after the first rape. She did not report it after the second rape.

It was only after she found evidence of him seeing someone else that the "rape" flag was flown.

Allow me to fly a flag of my own ....

Are you actually reading any of the articles on this?

Here's what I'm reading, tell me if I am completely out of left-field:

At first it was consensual.

After she discovered him fishing for other women it was no longer consensual.

No where in the articles does it say the "rape" happened after the discovery of the other women.

The reporting of the rape is what happened after the discovery of the other women.

Suspicious timing, isn't it?

Posted: 12/25/2012 4:58:11 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The allegations are that he raped three of his subordinates. It's a he'll of a lot more than "extra-marital sex".

It doesn't become rape until they get passed over for promotion.

Kinda like not paying a prostitute.

That's fucking disgusting for you to say on a public forum.

To be quite fucking blunt, the women who accuse him have lost their careers because they came forward, as they knew they would. So it's pretty fucking absurd, and shows a complete lack of comprehension of the military's justice system and this case to make a comment like that.

Can't really evaluate that until the state of her career before the allegations is known. This wouldn't be the first instance of "mutually assured carreer destruction" after a promotion pass-over or judicial action.

Yes, we really can.

I know a training squadron CO who was diddling an ensign in the training command she claimed rape when she washed out. Later recanted after some video of them being very friendly at a party surfaced. His career was over, she got her wings.

Posted: 12/25/2012 5:14:02 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Her career wasn't "already trashed". She "trashed" her career when she reported him.

You know the accuser's name and if sshe was on the last promotion list?

Polygraphs are absolutely, profoundly, completely, worthless for any purpose whatsoever, and inadmissible in court. There's a reason for that.

If so, why do I have to take one to get some tupes of governemnt clearance?

You really want to argue polygraphs?

Does or does not the government administer polygraphs in investigations, in particular to clear people for access to highly sensative information? If "Polygraphs are absolutely, profoundly, completely, worthless for any purpose whatsoever," why does the federal government use them?

So yes, I really do want to argue polygraphs.

Not a single US spy has been caught due to a polygraph. There have been numerous studies that show them ineffective in preventing espionage. It has been recommended at least once after completion of a study that the use of the polygraph be discontinued.

Posted: 12/25/2012 9:12:44 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Not a single US spy has been caught due to a polygraph. There have been numerous studies that show them ineffective in preventing espionage. It has been recommended at least once after completion of a study that the use of the polygraph be discontinued.

You left out the part that they're so reliable and effective they cannot be used as evidence, or by any employer other than the government.

Also, every not only have they not caught spies, but almost every spy in a sensitive position that has been caught, has passed multiple polygraphs. There has been at least one case where a poor showing on the polygraph lead to an investigation which eventually caught the spy, but I'm willing to bet that the rate of false positives is easily over 100 to 1, and probably much, much higher.

Posted: 12/25/2012 9:34:54 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Not a single US spy has been caught due to a polygraph. There have been numerous studies that show them ineffective in preventing espionage. It has been recommended at least once after completion of a study that the use of the polygraph be discontinued.

You left out the part that they're so reliable and effective they cannot be used as evidence, or by any employer other than the government.

Also, every not only have they not caught spies, but almost every spy in a sensitive position that has been caught, has passed multiple polygraphs. There has been at least one case where a poot showing on the polygraph lead to an investigation which eventually caught the spy, but I'm willing to bet that the rate of false positives is easily over 100 to 1, and probably much, much higher.

Funny how that works -- they are, as I recall, actually illegal to use in hiring by anyone, with the exception of national security positions, and they're inadmissible at every level of court in the US.

So when a defense attorney says his client passed a polygraph, anybody with a bit of common sense laughs at him.

Posted: 12/27/2012 7:38:47 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Not a single US spy has been caught due to a polygraph. There have been numerous studies that show them ineffective in preventing espionage. It has been recommended at least once after completion of a study that the use of the polygraph be discontinued.

You left out the part that they're so reliable and effective they cannot be used as evidence, or by any employer other than the government.

Also, every not only have they not caught spies, but almost every spy in a sensitive position that has been caught, has passed multiple polygraphs. There has been at least one case where a poot showing on the polygraph lead to an investigation which eventually caught the spy, but I'm willing to bet that the rate of false positives is easily over 100 to 1, and probably much, much higher.

Funny how that works -- they are, as I recall, actually illegal to use in hiring by anyone, with the exception of national security positions, and they're inadmissible at every level of court in the US.

So when a defense attorney says his client passed a polygraph, anybody with a bit of common sense laughs at him.

Inadmissable they may be - do you deny they are used in police investigations?

Posted: 12/27/2012 10:19:19 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Not a single US spy has been caught due to a polygraph. There have been numerous studies that show them ineffective in preventing espionage. It has been recommended at least once after completion of a study that the use of the polygraph be discontinued.

You left out the part that they're so reliable and effective they cannot be used as evidence, or by any employer other than the government.

Also, every not only have they not caught spies, but almost every spy in a sensitive position that has been caught, has passed multiple polygraphs. There has been at least one case where a poot showing on the polygraph lead to an investigation which eventually caught the spy, but I'm willing to bet that the rate of false positives is easily over 100 to 1, and probably much, much higher.

Funny how that works -- they are, as I recall, actually illegal to use in hiring by anyone, with the exception of national security positions, and they're inadmissible at every level of court in the US.

So when a defense attorney says his client passed a polygraph, anybody with a bit of common sense laughs at him.

Inadmissable they may be - do you deny they are used in police investigations?

So are confessions, outright lies, and various other psychological tools. If criminals were half-bright, a lot fewer would go to prison. Thankfully, half bright is too generous for most of them.

Even by the most glowing, positive reviews (that are, by the way, all anecdotal, go ahead and try to find serious, double-blind research with anything over 50% accuracy, i.e. chance) the polygraph is around ~90% accurate if you ask the right questions, the examiner does everything perfectly, and the subject has no knowledge of how a polygraph works. I personally wouldn't be willing to convict or free someone based only on a machine if I'm only going to get it right 9 out of 10 times in ideal circumstances.

Posted: 12/27/2012 10:40:36 AM EDT

[#38]

Great rule of thumb I use.

Don't get your pussy where you get your paycheck.

This of course applies to single persons or those of low morals who step out on their spouse. Neither of which apply to me. I wouldn't hear the shot if I did something stupid like that.

Posted: 12/27/2012 1:41:05 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Not a single US spy has been caught due to a polygraph. There have been numerous studies that show them ineffective in preventing espionage. It has been recommended at least once after completion of a study that the use of the polygraph be discontinued.

You left out the part that they're so reliable and effective they cannot be used as evidence, or by any employer other than the government.

Also, every not only have they not caught spies, but almost every spy in a sensitive position that has been caught, has passed multiple polygraphs. There has been at least one case where a poot showing on the polygraph lead to an investigation which eventually caught the spy, but I'm willing to bet that the rate of false positives is easily over 100 to 1, and probably much, much higher.

Funny how that works -- they are, as I recall, actually illegal to use in hiring by anyone, with the exception of national security positions, and they're inadmissible at every level of court in the US.

So when a defense attorney says his client passed a polygraph, anybody with a bit of common sense laughs at him.

Inadmissable they may be - do you deny they are used in police investigations?

You know, I heard once about police taking a colander, putting it on a guy's head, running a wire from it to a xerox copier with a page on the tray that said "liar" on it, and pushing the copy button every time the guy said something they thought was a lie.

That was "used in police investigations" too, right? Makes it no less scientifically absurd, and that's pretty much where a polygraph falls along the spectrum of science or fantasy.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Army general to face court-martial, possible life sentence, over sexual misconduct charges (Page 2 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us