Bob McCarty Writes

By Bob McCarty

Copyright © 2009 Bob McCarty Writes. All rights reserved. To request reprint permission, send an e-mail to BobMcCartyWrites (at) gmail (dot) com.

The question of whether members of the U.S. military and intelligence communities should be allowed to use waterboarding and other forms of torture during interrogations might be largely irrelevant today if not for a memo signed by Under Secretary of Defense James R. Clapper Jr. Oct. 29, 2007.

James R. Clapper Jr.

On that day, Clapper issued a memo granting “Operational Approval of the Preliminary Credibility Assessment Screening System (PCASS)” and designating the polygraph and its cousin, the PCASS, as the “only approved credibility assessment technologies” in the Department of Defense.

In effect, Clapper made it possible for those in the defense polygraph community to maintain what some describe as a 60-plus year stranglehold on truth-detection activities within DoD — this despite the fact that newer, more accurate and more versatile technologies have proven themselves more worthy in recent years.

One of the technologies that has proven itself more worthy, according to Jim Kane, executive director of the National Institute for Truth Verification in West Palm Beach, Fla., is the Computer Voice Stress Analyzer® developed by his company more than two decades ago and refined several times since.

It was the success of CVSA® technology in Iraq and Afghanistan that Kane says led DoD to create the PCASS system.

“They needed something to issue to troops in the field who used the CVSA and whose commanders — including some general officers — supported the CVSA,” the veteran with more than 30 years of diverse intelligence experience explained before adding that PCASS was never tested for countermeasures before it was deployed to troops in the field.

“The demand for our system was so great that the DoD polygraphers had to take some action or they would have been put out of business by the CVSA,” he continued. “Their resistance to CVSA is doing great damage to our national security by keeping it from the war fighters who need it the most.”

Others, including more than 1,800 local, state and federal law enforcement agency end users of CVSA®, agree with Kane and believe the Army’s deployment of PCASS to combat zones 13 months ago was a decision that places the lives of U.S. combat troops at greater-than-necessary risk.

An “Anonymous Fort Bragg CVSA Examiner” sent me the following message which I present unedited:

“I was one of the first US Army soldiers trained on the CVSA system back in 2005. I have deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan and have used the CVSA in both theaters. Despite the unofficial “ban” on the system by the Army polygraph examiners, my commander and chain of command have supported and continue to support the CVSA.

“Over the past 4 years I have conducted over 200 CVSA exams, and kept records and logs of each exam as required by SOP. My CVSA exams have been accurate at least 94% of the time, because the information I developed from the CVSA was independently confirmed by other evidence we developed during our operations. And that is either Deceptive or Not Deceptive.

“Unlike the PCASS, there are no flashing lights, and no inconclusive results when you use a CVSA. The CVSA always lets you know whether a subject is Deceptive or Not Deceptive. Oh, did I mention some buddies from Fort Campbell who are also CVSA examiners went through PCASS training and they refuse to use it because it simply does not work. The whole PCASS concept is a joke, and when they went to PCASS training the instructors got pissed when they asked informed questions about the CVSA and polygraph.

“We will not risk our lives on a piece of junk that was put together by eggheads who don’t have a clue about the real world, and have probably never been to a combat zone. The CVSA is accurate, and has been instrumental in obtaining legal (by the book) confessions from the tests I have conducted. I have used it to get confessions from bombers , spies, infiltrators, killers, and other low life’s. They break down quickly once they know that you know the truth, and they confess.

“The CVSA has helped us round up more bad guys than I care to count. It is well regarded by Army SF and NSW, because it works. It has saved the lives of US personnel, ask any of the guys who have conducted the hundreds of CVSA exams in Iraq.

“I forgot to mention that the polygraph examiners go crazy when they find out we are using it. They will fly into our AO waving their regulations, and our chain of command boots them in the ass, and they leave with their tails between their legs. It is funny these clowns are more concerned about protecting their turf than they are about us and our mission. I am surprised the Army leadership puts up with the bullshit. They have ZERO successes to point to, only failures.”

Combat zones are not the only places within DoD where CVSA® has proven itself valuable, according to its advocates.

I obtained a copy of an After Action Report (AAR) written following a 30-day test of the technology at Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility in 2003.  It’s summary included the praise below:

“During the test period, it was obvious that CVSA would become an invaluable tool for focusing the efforts of intelligence collection.  By virtue of utilizing the CVSA equipment and training, interrogations could be focused on areas where deception if indicated, versus wasting time and energy on avenues of exploitation that would have little to no value.  The outcomes of the 30 day test period has shown outstanding results, and has generated a high degree of interest and satisfaction among the intelligence community.”

I also obtained a copy of a letter from a high-ranking interrogation official (name withheld) who served at GITMO.  It listed seven distinct advantages of CVSA® (shown below, unedited) over the traditional polygraph system:

1. It is more portable.
2. It is less intrusive (microphone as opposed to galvanic, heart, blood pressure, and breathing monitors)
3. Less training required for the examiner.
4. The test is easier to explain to the subject before the test is administered.
5. The test results are easier to explain to the subject.  (The charts for both control questions and relevant questions can be shown and explained.  This makes post test questioning much easier.)
6. There are no inconclusive test results.
7. The examiner can identify the questions to which the subject’s answers appeared to show deception.  This helps to focus additional questions and subsequent interrogations.  (The polygraphers would not identify the questions to which the subject appeared to be deceptive when answering.  They would only say the test showed “No deception indicated, deception indicated or inconclusive.”

The same document included the paragraph below as its closing statement:

“My opinion based upon my observation is that CVSA is superior to the polygraph when used as a tool in the interrogation process.  Consequently, I conclude that those who wish to remove CVSA from the “interrogator’s tool box” are more interested in protecting their turf than they are in gathering intelligence that protects the American people.”

The pro-CVSA® opinions above stand in stark contrast to “official” answers I received in  response to questions I asked about the Army’s use of portable lie detectors.

Appearing carefully-constructed and thoroughly-coordinated, they arrived in my inbox Tuesday after 27 days, after I had exchanged dozens of e-mails and after I had endured one “passing of the buck” — from the Pentagon to U.S. Central Command in Tampa.  The “messenger” delivering the answers was Maj. John Redfield, an Air Force PAO assigned to CENTCOM.

Asked whether officials at the joint command consider PCASS effective after one year of use, CENTCOM responded as follows:

“The comments from forward commanders and their principal intelligence advisors regarding the value of PCASS have been very favorable.  In Iraq and Afghanistan, PCASS has proven its value; aiding in the identification of individuals with inimical interests to the U.S. government and our allies has allowed commanders to take actions to reduce the risks these individuals posed.”

Asked if CENTCOM has plans to continue, expand or otherwise modify the use of PCASS devices in the field, they responded as follows:

“CENTCOM published guidance which authorizes the use of PCASS in our area of responsibility.  The continued use and any expansion of use will be decided by commanders on the ground and those ready to deploy after consultation with their military service leadership.  CENTCOM does not envision modifying the use of PCASS, as our current policy permits the use of the device as a screening tool in some very specific situations on specific individuals and under specific conditions.  To expose those specifics would endanger the lives of American military personnel.”

Asked if PCASS has been credited with directly saving any American lives or thwarting any enemy operations, CENTCOM replied as follows:

“Unlike a bulletproof vest, PCASS is not a stand-alone tool which one can point to and give credit for saving lives.  PCASS is an aid which complements other techniques and is a device which is complemented by other procedures.  Together these tools have aided intelligence personnel in the identification of locally employed persons who were corresponding with violent extremist organizations, foreign intelligence and security services, and criminal elements.  There is no way to measure how many lives were saved by taking positive action against individuals who would pass friendly information to persons who would then use that information to attack or attempt to disrupt U.S. and coalition military operations.”

This is only the beginning.  There’s much more to this story, and I’ll be reporting on it in days to come.  Stay tuned!

Editor’s Note: On April 8, I contacted officials at Lafayette Instrument Company, the privately-held firm in Lafayette, Ind., that supplies PCASS under terms of its contract with the Army; however, Christopher L. Fausett, VP Polygraph, politely turned down my request for answers to PCASS-related questions:  “Thank you for your inquiry, but you will need to contact US Army Public Affairs.”

About the author: Bob McCarty is a former Air Force public affairs officer who blogs full time at  Bob McCarty Writes (www.BobMcCarty.com).

Copyright © 2009 Bob McCarty Writes. All rights reserved. To request reprint permission, send an e-mail to BobMcCartyWrites (at) gmail (dot) com.

* * *

UPDATE 5/07/07 at 1:44 p.m. Central: Just published the second piece in my series, If Not for Memo, Torture Might Not Be Issue (Part 2). In Part Two, I offer a dozen solid pieces of evidence from individuals and agencies inside and outside of DoD that make a solid argument in support of the more accurate and versatile technology, CVSA®, that realized unprecedented success when used by the U.S. military from 2002 to 2008.  Furthermore, I reveal how Americans on the front lines of the War on Terror — including active-duty members of the Special Operations community, senior interrogation officials at Guantanamo Bay and others — believe the actions of leaders within DoD are “doing great damage to our national security” by keeping the best equipment available from the war fighters who need it the most in places like Afghanistan, Iraq and GITMO.