Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 CptJake wrote:

 dæl wrote:
They still use polygraphs!? Weren't polygraphs proven to be useless years ago?

As silly as some may think it, polygraphs are very much of use in the intel community. I know some positions require a pretty extensive 'lifestyle polygraph' which starts broad in scope, but can narrow down quickly based on answers. Using polygraph isn't cheap either, but they are reliable enough and give enough info as opposed to say NOT doing the polygraph that certain agencies do use them for certain positions. Remember, in this context they are not being used to gather trial worthy evidence/confessions, which would entail a completely different standard of acceptability.

The Washington State Patrol uses polygraphs as an entrance requirement. When I went to work for them as IT support I had to do one. They prefer the polygraph over even a drug test, as the questions cover this as well so no peeing in a cup. Kind of shocking to me really that someone can be accepted into a position as long as they can figure out how to beat a polygraph, as long as you don't pull a bonehead maneuver such as the gentleman who left a book titled: "How to Beat a Polygraph" on his driver seat when he went in for his interview. That made the news in Olympia...

 streamdragon wrote:

whembly wrote:Did you even read the fething CNN article?

Officials were warning the survivors that "You don’t jeopardize yourself, you jeopardize your family as well."

Just to be clear here, officials were not making threats against operatives families. Let's look at that section of the article:

It is being described as pure intimidation, with the threat that any unauthorized CIA employee who leaks information could face the end of his or her career.

In exclusive communications obtained by CNN, one insider writes, "You don't jeopardize yourself, you jeopardize your family as well." [whembly: WTF!]

Another says, "You have no idea the amount of pressure being brought to bear on anyone with knowledge of this operation."

The insider is not reading a memo or anything. The only actual direct threat the article presents is the underlined, which I think you'll agree is reasonable.

whembly wrote:Look... this isn't from a no-name blogger, Van Jones or *gasps* FoxNews. This is CNN.

How do you square with comments like these:
"You have no idea the amount of pressure being brought to bear on anyone with knowledge of this operation."

"You don't jeopardize yourself, you jeopardize your family as well."

CIA spokesman Dean Boyd asserted that "CIA employees are always free to speak to Congress if they want,"

Obviously, the comittee doesn't believe that.

1. CNN:

That is an actual debate that happened on CNN. CNN is a joke. Have been for years.

2. Those comments all square fairly well with covert operations. They're covert for a reason, and it's certainly not a life entered into easily. I would think the old Tehran listening operation shows what happens when CIA activities are outed, and if you think the CIA isn't still in Bengazi I don't know what to tell you. It's not like spies just go "Whoops, got caught, better never go back!"

So... do you buy that nothing wrong happened?

Also, do you believe Congress has oversight over what our Executive Branch does? (even super, duper top secret ones?).

 whembly wrote:
So... do you buy that nothing wrong happened?

Also, do you believe Congress has oversight over what our Executive Branch does? (even super, duper top secret ones?).

Neither of those relate directly to what I was saying, but I'll answer anyway:

1. I'm not 100% sure what you mean by 'nothing wrong happened', given that US citizens were killed in Bengazi. Something clearly went wrong. Do I think the POTUS is to blame? No. Do I think he lied to the American people about what happened? No. Do i think the whole thing has been blown well beyond any reasonable proportion? Yes. Do I think Stevens and his marines were left to die to cover a CIA operation? That I honestly can't answer. I try not to rule anything out when it comes to the CIA, even if they are a shell of their former cold-war selves.

2. Do I believe Congress has oversight? Yes, I do. 100% oversight? No. But the recent PRISM outing shows that Congress does know a lot of what goes on, in the U.S. and our operations elsewhere. Do I think all members of congress know about every CIA op? Of course not. Do I think Area 51 is actually some secret hangar filled with alien spacecraft that Congress is being kept blind on? Yes.

(That last one's a joke...)

Aha... getting into the meat here... cool!

 streamdragon wrote:

 whembly wrote:
So... do you buy that nothing wrong happened?

Also, do you believe Congress has oversight over what our Executive Branch does? (even super, duper top secret ones?).

Neither of those relate directly to what I was saying, but I'll answer anyway:

1. I'm not 100% sure what you mean by 'nothing wrong happened', given that US citizens were killed in Bengazi. Something clearly went wrong.

Yep.

Do I think the POTUS is to blame? No.

I don't really blame him either... gak happens and will/can be out of your control.

Do I think he lied to the American people about what happened? No.

He most certainly did lied to the American Public... blamed it on that anti-islam youtube film for over two weeks.

Do i think the whole thing has been blown well beyond any reasonable proportion? Yes.

In a way, I think it's been blown out of portion because of the political environment wanting to protect their tush or attempting to score political points. Regardless, the administration's response to this was distasteful... I understood why it happened... it was during the re-election compaign and they were trying to cover their ass, looking like idiots at the same time.

Do I think Stevens and his marines were left to die to cover a CIA operation? That I honestly can't answer. I try not to rule anything out when it comes to the CIA, even if they are a shell of their former cold-war selves.

We'll never know. Keep in mind, Stevens and his staff were from the States Department... not with the CIA. Having representatives from the States Department working with the CIA on some clandestine operations is... I don't know... weird. Happens on 9/11 of all days.

2. Do I believe Congress has oversight? Yes, I do.

100% oversight? No.

Um... they do if they push for it. Remember, co-equal branches.

But the recent PRISM outing shows that Congress does know a lot of what goes on, in the U.S. and our operations elsewhere. Do I think all members of congress know about every CIA op? Of course not.

Only select Rep / Senators has the same clearance as the Pres... it's just a matter of how hard Congress is willing to push, when in the last couple of decades, congress has been willing to fob off "congressional oversights" to the executive branch.

Do I think Area 51 is actually some secret hangar filled with alien spacecraft that Congress is being kept blind on? Yes.

(That last one's a joke...)

 whembly wrote:
So... do you buy that nothing wrong happened?

I believe that a hell of a lot of people have spent a hell of a lot of time and effort looking for something bigger in the story, and then when they uncovered nothing, they've spent a hell of a lot of print space using writing vague stories full of vague allusions to some greater story.

And so, given the failure to find any kind of actual, substantive story, I'm inclined to suspect that there really isn't much more to it than four tragic deaths.

Also, do you believe Congress has oversight over what our Executive Branch does? (even super, duper top secret ones?).

Of course they do. But that oversight follows processes, it isn't a case of any junior CIA personel who sees one thing they don't like getting to walk in and talk to congress, unless what they have to say is serious whistleblower stuff. And even then I'm realistic enough to know that even with whistleblower protections there are serious ramafications to speaking out like that, including immense pressure placed on one's family.