Commentary: Why a great spy for America is no longer spying - Fairfield Daily Republic

Commentary: Why a great spy for America is no longer spying - Fairfield Daily Republic
Finals of Mr. Olympia 2019 Live Stream & Updates - Boston Sports Extra
Polygraph Tests Are Notoriously Unreliable. They're Even Worse in Cases of Sexual Assault. - Mother Jones
Inside the Black Mirror World of Polygraph Job Screenings - WIRED

Posted: 19 Sep 2019 04:52 AM PDT

Commentary: Jay Ambrose, Tribune News Service

It's scarcely over yet, this effort to grab President Donald Trump around the head for things that weren't his fault, drag him through the mud and say, there, we've got him now.

That seems pretty much what happened when a CNN reporter incorrectly told us Trump was responsible for our greatest spy in Russia being out of Russia. Government insiders played a role in this, too, themselves just maybe breaking the law, and you wonder if this is the new America.

This story begins with another story, one written by CNN's national security correspondent, Jim Sciutto, who had previously worked in the Obama administration. His subject was a spy in Russia who had served America for a decade or more and had such close contact with Russian President Vladimir Putin that he could convey what was on the top of his desk. This Kremlin official is the person who told our own intelligence agencies that Putin had himself ordered efforts to help elect Trump president, Sciutto said. Five sources in intelligence agencies, Congress and elsewhere in government told him so by way of classified information.

The scary thing in the tale, Sciutto said, was that the CIA figured it had to sneak him out of Russia despite his incredible importance, his role over the years of letting us know what was really, truly going on behind the scenes in a county forever trying to undermine us in any way it could. The reason was Trump's carelessness with security secrets, according to the newsman, who told us the CIA acted in 2017 and the spy is now in the United States. As others in the know also tell us, it could take years to replace him, assuming that happens.

There's a problem here, however: namely that the CIA decision was made in 2016 before Trump was elected president and that the rescue would have occurred then if the spy had not been so reluctant to leave his home country. This business about Trump is "simply false," says the CIA, and The New York Times has explained that agency's concerns were actually intense reporter scrutiny of the detailed report on Putin's election interference.

Eventually, it was felt, the Russians would see that there was a conniver aboard their ship. If they searched enough, they'd probably come to the right conclusion and kill him. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who had directed the CIA, worried aloud about CNN inaccuracy, saying he'd keep quiet except for egregious reporting that could put individuals and our nation at risk.

Other experts on intelligence gathering agree this was a hit on national security, but it's hardly something new. From the moment Trump was elected we've had excessive speculation about his criminality, often through leaks themselves defined as illegal by statute and including "revelations" that weren't up to the word's definition. The worst of it was a two-year, multimillion-dollar investigation that interfered mightily with the Trump administration in the absence of any proof of collusion with Russia. We still have unending impeachment talk even while probes in the other direction just may bite harder for some of those who have tried to overturn a legal presidential election.

None of this means Trump has never been careless with national security information, has never exhibited a brain frighteningly scattered and has never bungled a policy. But why not limit criticisms to his real screwups instead of making stuff up or at least putting aside old norms and seeing the end of his power as justifying means that threaten our democratic principles? Political bias characterized as truth-seeking is sadly playing more and more a role in some news reporting, and secret government informants are more and more betraying America.

Jay Ambrose is an op-ed columnist for Tribune News Service.

Finals of Mr. Olympia 2019 Live Stream & Updates - Boston Sports Extra

Posted: 14 Sep 2019 03:04 PM PDT

This season's Olympia will decide on a whole lot of landmarks, even as it's going to reflect the launch of a brand new age, at lots of manners. Trainers like Brandon Curry and also Hadi Choopan will probably be competing for its empty title of Mr. Olympia 2019. 2019 Mr. Olympia live stream weekend is going to have a whole lot of activity, from begin to finish. Saturday at 10:00 PM ET will webcast Finals of Mr. Olympia 2019 Live stream, watch all the action here by subscription.

It had been just nine weeks past that Rhoden was renowned since the future of this activity. A breath of oxygen the game was crying out for. In winning the name for the very first time in September, Rhoden toppled the long-reign of all bodybuilding critters becoming the primary competitor to get the big event with a thinner waist along with also an uncharacteristically lighter framework of merely 117kg.

Mr. Olympia 2019 Live Stream Free Online Telecast

At the distance of a couple weeks, the entire game was rocked to its center by the scandal surrounding its brand new posterboy. Wile he's allegedly passed and conducted just two separate lie detector tests at recent years since he had been initially accused of assaulting women bodybuilding competition, the scandal is place to burn off everything in its course as the big event approaches in September.

As per a written report by Ron Harris from Muscle Growth, Rhoden had been competent to maneuver two distinct forms of lie detector tests a normal polygraph and also an eyedetect test that measures micro eye motions in reaction to responses awarded.

Still another interesting matter of note to the competition, may be the simple fact it is the maximum payout of any former calendar year. The ladies particularly, will probably soon be getting extra cash for rival. That is guaranteed to create the most out of every competitor that strikes at the point. Thus, You Need To Alltime Join Official Channel. Because Official Channel Provides You with the Accessibility to See the Function. If There Are Lots of Issues To Join to Official ChannelYou are able to Enroll The Channel, Thus , You Could Gain Access Using Cable Any Moment Anywhere. Behind That Modern World, There's Still Another World That's Known as Internet World. If You Would like to Watch Mr. Olympia 20-19 Online With No Cable, You've Got to Discover the Internet Accessible Channels. Watching With No Cable Can Be A Predominant Option for Those Who Have High Definition, Or Only People That Do Not Wish To Utilize Cable.

Men's Open Live

The Men's Open division of the Mr. Olympia is the most coveted branch in all of bodybuilding. This year old Olympia will see that a new champion crowned in this division, as it's reigning champ will not be competing as of this season's competition. Subsequentlythis has left the door open for some of younger nerves to step up, and claim the title.

A number of the athletes who are expected to succeed within this division include Brandon Curry, William Bonac, and Roelly Winklaar. " there also have been rumors that multiple-time Mr. Olympia, Phil Heath, may make a surprise appearance at the show. Afterward this year could provide fans the most useful contest on the list of athletes, to find who would be Mr. Olympia.

212 Olympia Live

The 212 branch is also visiting a new winner crowned this past year. Like the Men's Open, this allows for a boost in motivation on the list of athletes competing, therefore expect to observe everybody's top skills being exhibited on platform.

You can find several people that have been inplace, primed and ready to grab the crown at this year's Olympia. Some of the ones to keep the eyes are Derek Lunsford, and Kamal Elgargni. Also the Iranian Hadi Choopan will be allowed to attend the event, after handling reverses surrounding his U.S. Visa. So this year's 212 Olympia needs to be fun to watch.

Classic Physique Olympia Live

The reigning, also defending Classic Physique champ, Breon Ansley, will probably soon be looking to continue his streak of dominance at the 20-19 Olympia. He has won the Classic Physique name for its last two years, and he wishes to make it a 3rd time. Moreover, it appears very likely that he will, since he won every rivalry he's taken part in, since 2016.

But he will have famous brands Chris Bumstead to move facing. Bumstead has scored next supporting Ansley for the last two decades, that's sure to have sparked a fire under him, competitively. Hopefully that will not impact his operation too much, also we can observe these two fighting that prime spot.

Men's Physique Live

Men's Physique can be just a little different than the other divisions that have been mentioned up to now. Athletes listed here are far more on their period presence and muscle symmetry, than that they truly are conditioning or size. It really is more relating to this "perfect body," as opposed to their own Vintage counter parts.

At the 2019 Mr. Olympia, it is Very Likely that you will see defending champ Brandon Hendrickson bring a well-rounded performance To the stage. He walked through his contest pretty readily, this past year. Therefore, it will be exciting to see how he can against a new harvest of competitions.

Bikini Olympia Live

Today it's time to turn our focus to this ladies competing at the 20-19 Mr. Olympia. The Bikini Olympia functions to show that the physiques of those Incredible women. However, it has a tendency to focus more on a wellrounded appearance compared to muscularity.Last year old queen, Angelica Texiera will be looking to catch that title just as before. These ladies will soon be wearing a wonderful show for the fans.

Fitness Olympia

The Fitness branch inside the Olympia is just one of many more exciting female events to happen at your competition. Last year's champ," Whitney Jones, is appearing to be similar to most of her previous examples, also shield her name multiple occasions. She placed on a solid showing last year, shooting Oksana Grishina's empty tournament.

However, when she is trying to replicate that operation, she will have to make sure what is set up. Jones will rise against the likes of Ryall Graber, who won second place this past year. Consequently, this year's rivalry will be a simple one.

Women's Physique Live

The ladies competing here have to be sure that their form is on point. Additionally, like the men, this event is targeted to a wellrounded skill-set from each of the athletes competing.

Even the 2018 Olympia saw Shanique Grant increase above the rest, to acquire the Women's Physique division. Subsequently, it is expected she will be bringing her A-Game into the stage this year. But she might need to go through women like Natalia Abraham Coelho and Jennifer Taylor, who finished in the top three last year, alongside Grant.

The 2019 Mr. Olympia will be an Outstanding series, with a sizable weekend Of events. Afterall, you will never know what could happen at the occasion. Who will rise over the contest, to prove themselves as a elite stylist? Stay Tuned in to MiddleEasy to Discover!

Polygraph Tests Are Notoriously Unreliable. They're Even Worse in Cases of Sexual Assault. - Mother Jones

Posted: 05 Apr 2019 12:00 AM PDT

RichVintage/Getty Images

Last Friday, as the two women who have accused Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax of sexual assault prepared to go on CBS This Morning and recount their stories to anchor Gayle King, Fairfax was traveling to a Washington, DC, law office to sit down with a very different type of interviewer: polygraph examiner Jerry Hanafin.

Hanafin, a retired FBI agent, had administered a polygraph test last fall to Christine Blasey Ford, who had just accused then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of assaulting her. Those results appeared to support her case. But this time, with Fairfax, Hanafin was giving the exam to someone on the other side of a sexual violence allegation.

His report, obtained by CBS and published Wednesday, concluded that Fairfax's physiological indicators—such as perspiration, breathing, and heart rate—were "not indicative of deception" when he denied engaging in "non-consensual sexual activity" with either of his accusers, Vanessa Tyson and Meredith Watson. Fairfax, for his part, seems to have taken the results as an exoneration: "I feel so strongly regarding my innocence that I submitted myself to polygraph tests for each of the accusations against me," he said in a statement to CBS. "I passed those tests. I did not assault either of my accusers."

But what does the polygraph exam—a controversial technique whose results are typically not admissible in court—really tell us about Fairfax's responsibility for the alleged sexual assaults? According to Leonard Saxe, a social psychologist at Brandeis University who has studied the accuracy of polygraphs for decades and led a congressional study on their efficacy in the 1980s, the exam is basically useless in determining if someone is telling the truth. "The test is just not supported by either theory or data," Saxe argues. "Somebody who lies, maybe they sweat a lot. They may look away, and so on. But the other possibility is also true. If you're arrested for some serious crime, if your life is on the line, you may be nervous, you may be sweating just because you're concerned about being truthful."

That's the crux of most criticisms of polygraph exams (and there are many): that they measure signs of nervousness, and being nervous can result from any of dozens of indistinguishable factors—guilt, yes, but also fear that another kind of wrongdoing will be discovered, or even anxiety about having to take an exam considered by many to be junk science. "The lie detector is not a lie detector—it's a fear detector," Saxe says.

That's part of the reason sexual assault victim advocates have typically discouraged investigators from asking victims to take polygraphs: The physical reactions that may come along with discussing a traumatic event, like a sexual assault, can produce false indicators that the person being tested is lying, according to the National Sexual Violence Resource Center. It's also the recommendation of the International Association of Chiefs of Police not to polygraph sexual assault victims, because it can alienate them and destroy their trust in police, lowering the odds of a successful investigation.

But on the other side, lie detector tests are perhaps even more flawed when used on those accused of sexual misconduct. Mary Koss, a public health professor at the University of Arizona who has studied sexual violence for decades, argues that polygraph exams are particularly ineffective in testing the truthfulness of a person accused of sexual assault because "most rapists, even those in prison, do not perceive what they did as rape no matter what others saw." She adds, "If you truly believe something to be true, even if it is a misperception, you can pass a polygraph."

Indeed, research shows that most offenders will not admit to "rape" or to "sexual assault," even at the same time as they cop to behavior that amounts to it. That's according to Kevin Swartout, a Georgia State professor of psychology, who studies perpetrators of sexual violence and the type of people most likely to commit those crimes. When Swartout surveys men about whether they've committed sexual violence, he has to carefully design his questions to account for this problem. "If you were to ask somebody, 'Did you penetrate someone's vagina with your penis when they did not want to?' They might say, 'Yeah, I did that, when I was in college,' or whatever."

But when you ask if they committed rape? As Swartout explains, "They'll say, 'Oh, no, no, I've never, I've never done anything like that.'" Once, he says, when he asked about 350 college men a similar series of questions, about 30 admitted to behavior that the FBI would label rape. But only one person openly said yes, he had committed rape.

The reason boils down to our tendency to give ourselves a pass when we're evaluating our own behavior, especially compared to others. Labels like "rapist," Swartout says, "carry a special meaning above and beyond their actual definition. It's basically the worst thing that you can be labeled." And the discrepancy between the facts and perpetrators' self-regard is exacerbated by rape myths—such as the belief that rape is usually a stranger-leaps-out-of-the-bushes situation—that reassure men who have committed sexual violence against a friend or intimate partner that they don't qualify as a perpetrator.

All of this gets murkier when the behavior in question involves a disagreement over consent, not the actual sexual behavior in question. According to Maia Christopher, executive director of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, some perpetrators may claim they didn't "coerce" or "force" anybody to have sex. "That may very well be true," she says, but in cases of statutory rape, for instance, "that doesn't change the fact that's sexual assault." Same goes when there's a lack of affirmative consent.

On the flip side, Dan Sosnowski, a former president of the American Polygraph Association who has been conducting polygraphs for 39 years, vociferously defends the accuracy of polygraphs, even in sexual assault cases—if they're administered by a good enough examiner. "There's an art and science of the interview," he says. "If something really, really happened, it's written to your memory. It's written to your hard drive. I just have to give you a way to access that."

He also estimates that about half of the sexual assault criminal defendants he has tested over the years, usually at the behest of their private defense attorneys, maintained their innocence in exams and passed the polygraph. (If they were telling the truth, that would mean his clients experienced an extraordinarily high rate of false criminal sexual assault accusations, which experts estimate happen in just 2 to 8 percent of cases.)

Yet even Sosnowski says there's not enough information in Hanafin's report on Fairfax's polygraph test to say the public should accept its results at face value. Of particular concern, he says, are the length and lack of specificity in the questions asked of Fairfax, including, "Did you engage in any non-consensual sexual activity with Vanessa?" as well as the same question regarding Watson. Fairfax answered "no" in both instances, but those are not useful questions, Sosnowski explains, unless the examiner has clearly defined "sexual activity" beforehand. A separate exam question, he says, should address the alleged lack of consent, like, "Did you have an express, complicit, consensual agreement?" Sosnowski adds, "We have to be very explicit when we cover those issues."

He also believes other questions asked of Fairfax, such as, "Was Vanessa crying at any time she was in your hotel room?" skirt the heart of the allegations against him, which in this case include alleged forced oral sex in his 2004 Democratic National Convention hotel room. Whether Tyson was crying, he explains, "doesn't address anything to do with any sexual contact."

There are other reasons to take a polygraph exam like Fairfax's with a grain of salt; for instance, people who have been asked repeatedly about a subject will have a more moderate emotional reaction to it, lessening the likelihood that a polygraph will detect an anomaly even if they're lying, Saxe says.

No matter how you read Fairfax's polygraph, it's far from the end of the road for the investigation into his conduct; the lieutenant governor himself is calling for further inquiry into both allegations against him. "Law enforcement authorities in Boston and Durham have demonstrated a sensitivity to those who wish to report a crime," he suggested in a statement to CBS. "A civil lawsuit as well would provide a forum for assessing the credibility of all parties." Putting the final determination of guilt in any sexual violence case in the hands of police is far from a perfect solution. Then again, neither is a polygraph. Some polygraph examiners who work with police can successfully use the exam to intimidate suspects into a confession, or into giving up information, according to Saxe. But in determining guilt or innocence, "it's not useful," he adds.

That said, polygraphs often have success on a different measure: pushing a favorable narrative with the public. For public figures like Fairfax, Saxe says, "just the fact that they were willing to take a polygraph may suggest to people they have nothing to hide—and they were being truthful."

Inside the Black Mirror World of Polygraph Job Screenings - WIRED

Posted: 01 Oct 2018 12:00 AM PDT

Christopher Talbot thought he would make a great police officer. He was 29 years old, fit, and had a clean background record. Talbot had military experience, including a tour of Iraq as a US Marine, and his commanding officer had written him a glowing recommendation. In 2014, armed with an associate degree in criminal justice, he felt ready to apply to become an officer with the New Haven Police Department, in his home state of Connecticut.

Talbot sailed through the department's rigorous physical and mental tests, passing speed and agility trials and a written examination—but there was one final test. Like thousands of other law enforcement, fire, paramedic, and federal agencies across the country, the New Haven Police Department insists that each applicant take an assessment that has been rejected by almost every scientific authority: the polygraph test.

Commonly known as lie detectors, polygraphs are virtually unused in civilian life. They're largely inadmissible in court and it's illegal for most private companies to consult them. Over the past century, scientists have debunked the polygraph, proving again and again that the test can't reliably distinguish truth from falsehood. At best, it is a roll of the dice; at worst, it's a vessel for test administrators to project their own beliefs.

Yet Talbot's test was no different from the millions of others conducted annually across the public sector, where the polygraph is commonly used as a last-ditch effort to weed out unsuitable candidates. Hiring managers will ask a range of questions about minor crimes, like marijuana use and vandalism, and major infractions, like kidnapping, child abuse, terrorism, and bestiality. Using a polygraph, these departments believe, increases the likelihood of obtaining facts that potential recruits might prefer not to reveal. And like hundreds of thousands of job candidates each year, Talbot was judged to have lied on the test. He failed.

New Haven allows failed applicants to plead their case in public before the Board of Police Commissioners. So in February 2014, Talbot sat down and recited his experiences with lie detectors. He had first applied to the Connecticut State Police and was failed for deception about occasional marijuana use as a minor. He then tried again with a police department in New Britain, where a polygraph test showed him lying about his criminal and sexual history.

This time he had failed the New Haven polygraph for something cryptically called "inconsistencies." "[But] I'm not hiding anything," he said at the hearing. "I was being straight and honest and I've never been in trouble with the law. I'm not lying about anything."

Electronic lie detection is a peculiarly American obsession. No other country carries out anywhere near the estimated 2.5 million polygraph tests conducted in the US every year, a system that fuels a thriving $2 billion industry. A survey by the Bureau of Justice Statistics from 2007 found that around three-quarters of urban sheriff and police departments use polygraphs when hiring. Each test can cost $700 or more. Apply to become a police officer, trooper, firefighter, or paramedic today, and there is a good chance you will find yourself connected to a machine little changed since the 1950s, subject to the judgment of an examiner with just a few weeks' pseudoscientific training.

Last week the technology burst into the news when Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who accuses Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her as a teenager, said that she had taken a privately administered polygraph test to help bolster her account of the incident. "While not admissible in court, they're used by various governmental agencies and many people believe in their abilities," Douglas Wigdor, a former prosecutor who now represents victims in sexual harassment and sexual assault cases against high-profile men, told The Washington Post.

Search This Blog

Antipolygraph

Commentary: Why a great spy for America is no longer spying - Fairfield Daily Republic

Commentary: Why a great spy for America is no longer spying - Fairfield Daily Republic

Related