By John Q. Hosedrinker 
To combat leaks hindering immigration enforcement, DHS Secretary Noem mandated inclusion of a question regarding unauthorized media and NGO communication in all departmental polygraph tests. This directive, impacting access to classified information and sensitive positions, follows accusations that leaks disrupted operations in Colorado and California. The policy is part of a wider crackdown on employee communications within DHS, mirroring similar restrictions implemented by FEMA. While DHS defends the use of polygraphs, critics cite concerns regarding their reliability and accuracy.
Read the original article here
Noem’s decision to utilize polygraph tests to identify the source of Homeland Security leaks is deeply problematic, to say the least. The fundamental issue is the inherent unreliability of polygraph technology itself. It’s not a scientifically validated method of lie detection; the fact that it’s inadmissible as evidence in most courts should speak volumes about its accuracy and dependability. Serial killers and spies have famously passed these tests, highlighting the significant flaws in this approach. Employing such a flawed technology to investigate sensitive leaks is not only inefficient but also potentially damaging to any investigation.
The act of mandating polygraph tests for all Homeland Security personnel over potential leaks carries with it the heavy whiff of intimidation and a broader political agenda. Instead of focusing on a diligent investigation to find the real source of the leaks, this approach seems designed more to chill dissent and instill fear among employees. This tactic mirrors historical patterns of employing dubious methods to suppress information, harking back to Nixon’s similar misuse of such tests.
Furthermore, the broad application of polygraph testing is legally questionable. The appropriate use of polygraphs in an employment setting is generally limited to specific crimes or situations, often involving theft and those in a position to have committed the crime. Noem’s widespread implementation is a clear overreach, potentially violating employees’ rights and adding to the perception of this as a political witch hunt rather than a legitimate investigative process.
The absurdity of the situation is further amplified by the sheer number of individuals capable of leaking information within a large organization like Homeland Security. The sheer scale of the task makes relying on polygraph testing even more ludicrous. It’s akin to searching for a needle in a haystack with a tool that frequently misidentifies both needles and hay. The energy and resources devoted to this flawed method would be better invested in other investigative approaches.
This decision seems to stem from a fundamental misunderstanding, or perhaps willful disregard, of how polygraphs function. They are not lie detectors; instead, they measure physiological responses like heart rate and sweat. Nervousness, anxiety, or even simple apprehension can easily skew results, creating a high likelihood of false positives. Someone innocent but highly nervous about the test could easily fail, while a guilty party capable of maintaining composure could easily pass. This inherent fallibility makes polygraph results practically meaningless.
The situation highlights a larger concerning trend: the growing acceptance and use of pseudoscience within official capacities. The reliance on polygraph tests, given their proven unreliability, signifies a troubling prioritization of fear-mongering over effective, fact-based investigation. This raises serious concerns about the standards and procedures governing sensitive investigations within the government and exposes a potentially dangerous disregard for evidence-based decision-making.
In conclusion, Noem’s decision to employ polygraph testing to investigate Homeland Security leaks represents a failure in several critical areas. It reveals a lack of understanding of basic scientific principles, a disregard for established legal frameworks, and a prioritization of intimidation over diligent investigation. The entire endeavor appears poorly conceived, ineffective, and possibly illegal. It’s a tactic more likely to stifle legitimate reporting than to identify actual leakers and serves as a cautionary tale about the potential dangers of adopting unsubstantiated methods in official inquiries.