In a thread I started a little while back I shared the findings of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee concerning the theft of documents by Sandy Berger. While there wasn’t very much new information in the report, one troubling thing was that the 911 Commission was not given all the information as to the purloined papers. There is an Opinion piece in the WSJ here that lays the issue out nicely.
The question is, in light of the report (PDF), and in the interest of trying to determine the full extent and reason for the theft, should Berger be given the lie detector test that he agreed to as part of his plea? As his case has been settled, Berger would not be open to further prosecution on the thefts themselves, but he would have to answer questions under oath, so perjury charges could be brought if that can be proven.
While I feel Berger’s deal was ridicuously lenient, this is less about him than it is trying to find out if original documents were stolen. So, should we hook him up to the machine or not? If not, why not? Doesn’t it run counter to the national interest to have question marks regarding those documents remain than to know the full extent of the crime?
I defer to your estimation as to any successful prosecution resulting from this. But, as I stated, this is less about Berger than it is knowledge about what was stolen. Now, if you’re implying that without the threat of a successful prosecution hanging over his head, that Berger will not be compelled to be truthful or forthcoming, that, I think is a good point. And given his past activity, an accurate one.
But if we assume that to be true, doesn’t even the threat of a trial for perjury act as an inducement for telling the truth? And might not some good come from a subsequent plea deal. Something like him being stripped of security clearance for a time longer than the three years?
From a broader perspective, Bricker, do you see any value in the lie detector test being administered?
Part of his plea deal was that he lost his clearance for a time. Of course, he won’t automatically get it back once that time is up - he’d need to have a reason for the clearance and pass a background check again.
I think, personally, these new revelations ought to scotch any background checks.
Polygraphs are inadmissable as evidence, so it couldn’t be used in a perjury case. Berger could fail a test miserably and legally it wouldn’t mean a thing. It’s basically a worthless test.
If he passed it with flying colors, would you be convinced he was telling the truth?
Just because the test has limited, if any, use from a legal standpoint, doesn’t measn it is without merit. Otherwise the tests wouldn’t be used at all, right? And that wouldn’t have made the test a condition of his plea. Correct? I do not know the limits of the test, but from it’s continued use it seems that they are not “worthless”.
It would depend on his answers: the explanation he provided and how many holes were left.
Question to you: given the questions that still remain concerning the documents, his actions, and national security, should he be asked further questions as per his plea agreement or not? If not, why?
‘The Washington Post today illustrated that the use of lie detectors has little basis in science. We think that their article is a great illustration of the difference between sensitivity and specificity.
Sensitivity is the likelihood that someone who is not lying will take a lie detector test and pass. Specificity is the likelihood that someone who is lying will take a lie detector test and fail. These seem like they are measuring the same thing – the accuracy of the test – but they are in fact really different measurements. Unfortunately, the lie detector has a poor track record on both.’
Tests are used because people pay for them!
People pay to use dowsers and psychics too - even though there’s no evidence at all they work.
Would you say the Nigerian bank scam was not ‘without merit’?
I don’t know much about this particular case, but if you are interested in actual information, then a polygraph is useless to you. They are basically a pseudoscience (cite, cite (pdf)).
The second cite is from a paper by the statistician Stephen Fienberg, who was commissioned by the National Academy of Sciences to investigate the usefulness of polygraphs. He concludes:
No, I think he should be put into water and if he flaots, he’s guilty. Or be forced to pull out a coin from a cauldron of boiling water and see if he gets burned.
Both of these medieval methods are only slightly less reliable than the Polygraph.
Here’s how the Polygraph really works. In advance, or due to the way you answer the questions, the Polygraph operator has already determined if he thinks you are guilty*. If he thinks you are guilty, he’ll point to several lines on the test you just took, and inform you that “the polygraph sez you’re lying”, whereupon you’re supposed to be so much in awe of a machine that you confess all. :rolleyes:
and he’s an experienced interrogator, so he’s usually right. Usually.
At long last the perfidy of Sandy Berger may be revealed, and the treachery of the Clinton admin as well! We already have documented proof of his collusion with Osama (I saw it on TV, couldn’t be on TV if it weren’t the truth…). Now we can answer the burning question: at what point did Clinton begin his plot to undermine the Bush administration’s War on Terr?
Nice handwaving there. Maybe we can get you to ride in the parade in the convertible and you can do your stuff. Now, serioulsy, what do you think should be done about Berger? Yes he was tried and that is behind us. But questions remain, do they not? These questions pertain to national security. The 911 Commission was formed in order to see what happened in the hopes of preventing a future attack. Do you think that that is a worthy endeavor? If so, isn’t the information they are given critical? If certain information was kept from them (through the theft), isn’t that important? (I’d also like to know why they were misled as to his theft after the fact.) Doesn’t the country have a vested interested in trying to ascertain what documents may be missing? I really don’t see this as a partisan issue. Jeeze, a former National Security Advisor stole documents by putting them in his socks and underpants—and not just once! So, given what we know today, what do YOU think should be done?
Not according to the 9/11 commission itself. Your query that “If certain information was kept from them (through the theft), isn’t that important?” is mooted by their own statement that they got everything they needed.
But you’ve already been told that. Too bad it didn’t fit the conclusion you wanted to reach, though
