| Submit your comments on this article |
| Government Corruption |
| Pentagon announces investigation into leaks, which could include polygraph tests |
| 2025-03-24 |
| [FoxNews] The Pentagon said its intelligence and law enforcement arms are probing 'recent unauthorized disclosures' of national security information The Pentagon said it would investigate what it claims are leaks of national security information, saying that the probes could include polygraph tests for employees in the Defense Department. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s chief of staff, Joe Kasper, sent a memo Friday saying that the Pentagon's intelligence and law enforcement arms are probing "recent unauthorized disclosures" of national security information, without offering details about alleged leaks. "Recent unauthorized disclosures of national security information involving sensitive communications with principals within the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) demand immediate and thorough investigation," Kasper wrote. "If this effort results in information identifying a party responsible for an unauthorized disclosure," then the information "will be referred to the appropriate criminal entity for criminal prosecution," he added. Kasper's memo said the polygraphs would be used "in accordance with applicable law and policy." President Donald Trump rejected a report from The New York Times that his senior adviser, Elon Musk, would be briefed on how the U.S. would handle a potential war with China. Musk responded by suggesting that people leaking "maliciously false information" to the media will be identified and prosecuted. "The New York Times is pure propaganda," Musk said Friday on X. "Also, I look forward to the prosecutions of those at the Pentagon who are leaking maliciously false information to NYT. They will be found." Investigations into the alleged leaks at the Pentagon come after Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem revealed a move to step up lie-detector tests on employees in an attempt to identify people who may be leaking information to the media about immigration enforcement operations. The Justice Department also announced an investigation on Friday into what it purported to be "the selective leak of inaccurate, but nevertheless classified, information" from intelligence agencies about a Venezuelan gang called Tren de Aragua, alleged members of which are being targeted by the Trump administration for removal from the U.S. Leaks from within the federal government happen in every administration across various agencies. While polygraph exams are typically not admissible in court proceedings because of concerns about their unreliability, they are often used by federal law enforcement agencies and for national security clearances. The Supreme Court also ruled in 1998 that polygraph tests were inadmissible in military justice proceedings. |
| Posted by:Skidmark |
| #25 "Is today Monday?" would of course not be a control question. Sure, sure, of course not. How would you know? |
| Posted by: DooDahMan 2025-03-24 20:50 |
| #24 #10 If the poly is totally ineffective, why have intelligence services invested so much time and effort into training people to defeat them ? The polygraph is one of many tools available. Is it foolproof? Certainly not. Can it be an indicator of possible deception? I believe it can. Posted by Besoeker The primary purpose of a poly is to elicit a confession. All else is junk science as they say. In regards to detection of deception - a skilled interviewer/interrogator is much better than a polygraph. |
| Posted by: Tennessee 2025-03-24 18:06 |
| #23 You cannot possibly be a sociopath, Skidmark, which speaks to the test and the testers. Only God Himself and some of His angels have never broken trust. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2025-03-24 17:36 |
| #22 Yeah, "have you ever broken someone's trust" stung. They were happy I was only a sociopath. |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2025-03-24 16:34 |
| #21 They most restrictive clearance is a TS/SCI with a lifestyle polygraph. It is a really fucked up set of questions they asked and I had to go through it. Doing polygraphs for regular employees... may not work as well. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2025-03-24 16:27 |
| #20 /\ "Is today Monday?" would of course not be a control question. Regardless of the question, your answer is "NO." |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2025-03-24 10:23 |
| #19 LOL no, we don't use this crap in Germany. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2025-03-24 10:14 |
| #18 Sounds bitter, like someone lost to a poly. |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2025-03-24 10:09 |
| #17 "Is today Monday?" would of course not be a control question. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2025-03-24 09:51 |
| #16 "Just tell him/her they failed and see what happens." That's what they often do. And it might fool a very gullible person. The person who did this has probably already lawyered up. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2025-03-24 09:50 |
| #15 Seems to me an inaccurate test could be part of an investigation and the threat of it may discourage future leaks by amateur swampers. Just tell him/her they failed and see what happens. Police on teevee lie all the time to get information to catch the bad guys... |
| Posted by: Bobby 2025-03-24 09:25 |
| #14 "Is today Monday?" |
| Posted by: DooDahMan 2025-03-24 08:51 |
| #13 The Control Question Test has no scientific validity. It's not a scientific procedure. You might as well believe in astrology or tarot cards. Flipping a coin will also do. Do the math: Let's say you need to test 1,000 employees to find one culprit. Let's assume that the polygraph is 95 percent valid (it isn't), then the one guilty person would be identified as deceptive but so would 50 innocent persons. This means the predictive validity would be about 2 percent. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2025-03-24 08:45 |
| #12 Besides, Aldrich Ames seemed to do o.k., for a little while, at least. |
| Posted by: DooDahMan 2025-03-24 08:27 |
| #11 And certified polygraphers don't grow on trees. |
| Posted by: DooDahMan 2025-03-24 08:26 |
| #10 If the poly is totally ineffective, why have intelligence services invested so much time and effort into training people to defeat them ? The polygraph is one of many tools available. Is it foolproof? Certainly not. Can it be an indicator of possible deception? I believe it can. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2025-03-24 07:41 |
| #9 “Both for practical reasons and for mathematically verifiable moral reasons, authority and responsibility must be equal - else a balancing takes place as surely as current flows between points of unequal potential. To permit irresponsible authority is to sow disaster; to hold a man responsible for anything he does not control is to behave with blind idiocy." - Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers |
| Posted by: Grom the Affective 2025-03-24 07:35 |
| #8 If you are in the intelligence community and you think that polygraphs work, then maybe you shouldn't be in the intelligence community. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2025-03-24 07:26 |
| #7 Then don't work in a job that requires it. Simple |
| Posted by: Frank G 2025-03-24 07:25 |
| #6 No, exactly because of that nobody should take a poly. Especially if you DON'T believe in it. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2025-03-24 07:21 |
| #5 /\ Then taking a poly should not be an issue for anyone. More to it than an old-fashioned graph and needle. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2025-03-24 07:12 |
| #4 While Poly's do work on the average Joe blow staffer. But with that said, I have seen demo's & videos of people trained to lie their ass off, and the poly needle not bounce. Now using Sodium Thiopental that's another story. Check of JFK assignation investigated name: Perry Russo and the application there. |
| Posted by: NN2N1 2025-03-24 07:08 |
| #3 Polygraph is junk science. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2025-03-24 06:54 |
| #2 How about a Poly as a condition of employment? Add to that Minnesota Multi Phase testing and a financial background check. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2025-03-24 06:06 |
| #1 FBI Director Patel shares how the agency is restoring trust |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2025-03-24 01:16 |