Tag Archives: George W Bush

Dial ‘O’ for Murder: Should Barack Obama Face Murder Charge When ObamaPhone Used for Criminal Purposes?

EDITOR’S NOTE: Below is a guest post by Paul R. Hollrah, a resident of Oklahoma who writes from the perspective of a veteran conservative politico and retired corporate government relations executive whose life experience includes having served two terms as a member of the Electoral College. Even if you disagree with him, this piece will make you think long and hard.

Mugshot: Skyy Durrell Barrs, 30.

Mugshot: Skyy Durrell Barrs, 30.

On the evening of June 30, my longtime friend Chuck de Caro, a Pentagon consultant, and his wife, Lynne Russell, former anchorwoman for CNN Headline News, checked into a Motel 6 at 6015 Iliff Road, NW, in Albuquerque. Chuck, Lynne and their 12-year- old semi-incontinent Weimerauner, Oliver, were traveling on a combination business and first anniversary road trip from Washington, D.C., to California. They stopped at the well-lighted and apparently-secure motel because of its pet-friendly policy and easy access to the hotel dog park.

After checking into their room and unloading their bags, Chuck prepared to take a shower while Lynne returned to their car for s supply of dog food. However, as Lynne was inserting her key card into the electronic door lock to reenter their room, she was attacked from behind by a large black male, pushed into the room, and thrown onto the bed.

At that instant, Chuck emerged from the shower, naked and soaking wet, only to find Lynne and a black male, Tomorio Walton, facing each other. Walton, a parole violator from Memphis with a long list of felonies to his credit… including 28 guilty pleas in the 7½ years between June 5, 2007, and Dec. 29, 2014… held a shiny, large-frame semi-automatic pistol in his hand and was demanding their money and their valuables.

Both Chuck and Lynne have concealed-carry permits and their handguns were laying side-by-side on a night table next to the bed (Lynne also has two martial arts black belts and is a former deputy sheriff). As Chuck attempted to calm the obviously drug-agitated intruder, Lynne said, “Let me see what I can get you,” and moved to the bedside table to retrieve her purse. However, as she did so, she discreetly placed one of the two handguns inside the purse, handed it to Chuck, and said, “Is there anything in here that you might give him?”

Chuck reached inside the purse, grasped the handgun and waited for the right moment. Then, as Walton seized a computer bag, he began firing at close range. Chuck’s military training kicked in and, although wounded three times, he quickly closed the distance from ten to six feet before emptying his seven-round magazine into Walton, striking him seven times as he staggered toward the door. Seconds later the intruder fell, mortally wounded, in the motel parking lot.

When Albuquerque police later examined surveillance tapes, they saw Walton exit the left rear door of a black 2015 Chevrolet Malibu Sedan. The Chevy is then seen driving slowly through the Motel 6 parking lot with what appeared to be a male driver and a female passenger in the front seat and a third individual in the right rear seat. Surveillance tapes then show Walton proceeding along the walkway in front of the rooms, speaking on a cell phone, while another individual walked nearby, also speaking on a cell phone. Apparently, no one on the Motel 6 staff — not even the motel’s armed security guard — was watching the video monitors.

Albuquerque police were later contacted by a “source” who asked to remain anonymous. The source advised them that the driver of the black 2015 Chevy Malibu was a black male named Skyy Barrs and that the automobile used in the holdup attempt was registered to his girlfriend, Bonica Amarillo. When the occupants of the Chevy Malibu heard gunfire, they drove again through the motel parking lot, and when they saw Walton lying on the pavement, covered with blood, Barrs stopped to examine him. Surveillance tapes show that Barrs held Walton in his arms briefly, and when he concluded that his accomplice was dead, he dropped him onto the pavement, reentered the automobile and drove away.

When police obtained a search warrant for Walton’s cell phone they found an individual named “Ski” on the contact list. They also found that calls were made between Barrs and Walton at 9:06 p.m., 9:07 p.m. and 9:08 p.m., and a missed call from Barrs to Walton at 11:35 p.m., approximately the instant that Walton attacked Lynne Russell and forced her into her room. Police also found a text message from Barrs to Walton, dated Saturday, June 27. The message read, cryptically, “We about to Hite (sic) some licks,” street slang for “we are going to commit a robbery.”

According to the arrest warrant, the source told Albuquerque police that Walton worked as a criminal “slave” for Skyy Barrs, an arrangement in which Barrs provided the planning, the transportation and the weaponry necessary to commit a crime. As such, Barrs is now behind bars, charged with felony murder, kidnapping (two counts), armed robbery (two counts), aggravated battery with great bodily harm, assault with intent to commit a violent felony, felon in possession of a firearm, aggravated burglary and six counts of conspiracy. Under the law, all those who participated in the crime, including Barrs’ girlfriend, Bonica Amarillo, and the unnamed rear seat occupant, will face the same charges when taken into custody.

What causes me to dwell on the exchange of cell phone calls between Walton and Barrs is the fact that the cell phones used in the commission of the robbery and attempted murder were “ObamaPhones,” free cell phones provided with few questions to the “poor” by the Obama administration. So the question arises, if those who provide material support in the commission of a crime, such as transportation and weaponry, are equally as guilty as the person who actually commits the crime, how far does that liability extend?

Under criminal law, an individual is complicit in a crime only if he or she is aware of impending criminal activity and has the ability to either prevent it or report it, but fails to do so. In such an event, the individual effectively allows criminals activity to occur despite being able to prevent it, either directly or indirectly by contacting the authorities.

The offender then becomes a de facto accessory to the crime rather than an innocent bystander.

So, while Barrs, his girlfriend, and an unnamed third party were all aware of Walton’s intended crime and had the ability to either prevent it or report it, the fact that Barack Obama indirectly participated in the commission of the crime by providing the cell phones used in the commission of a crime does not make him “complicit” because he had no personal knowledge of the crime.

A visit to the ObamaPhone website tells us that, “Welfare recipients, and others, can receive a free cell phone, but the program is not funded by the government or taxpayer money… and it’s hardly new.” The website explains that the ObamaPhone program is paid for by the telephone service providers. What they fail to mention is that each and every one of us who has a land line or a cell phone account finds a charge on our monthly statements that covers the cost of the ObamaPhone program. Obama administration “social engineers” fail to understand that government-imposed fees that are ultimately passed on to consumers are, in effect, indirect taxes.

The Obama administration and their supporters are so sensitive to criticism of the ObamaPhone program that they have, as always, attempted to lay the blame elsewhere. The ObamaPhone website goes into great detail, explaining that the program, which has increased from $800 million in 2009 to $2.2 billion in 2012, did not begin with Barack Obama. Although Obama is given credit for it, the website explains that the George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan administrations played significant roles in launching the program, as did the FDR and Woodrow Wilson administrations.

Unaccustomed as the Obama administration is to taking responsibility for any of their actions, the ObamaPhone website tells us that the Safelink Wireless program offered the first free government cell phones in Tennessee in 2008, during the George W. Bush administration, three months before Obama was inaugurated. They lay blame on the Clinton administration, because it was during the 1990s that the Federal Communications Commission authorized a subsidy for landline telephones as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. They lay blame on the Reagan administration, because it was during the 1980s when the FCC created the original Lifeline Assistance program. And they lay blame on the Roosevelt administration, because it was in 1934, during FDR’s first term, that Congress created the FCC, promising “to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, a rapid, efficient, nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges.”

And, believe it or not, there are those who insist that the ObamaPhone program began in the early part of the 20th century, during the Woodrow Wilson administration, when the first telephone companies were founded and the phone service offered by a company in one town was often incompatible with the phone service offered by another company in another town. It was then that the Wilson administration gave AT&T a monopoly over phone service, allowing them to set nationwide technology standards and to determine the nation’s future telephone system.

Inasmuch as cell phones did not come into widespread use until very early in the 21st century, Presidents Wilson and Roosevelt might have acted differently had they known what was coming. But Barack Obama sets the rules of the blame game. If his administration believes that it is even remotely reasonable and logical to think that the Wilson administration bears some responsibility for the existence of the ObamaPhone program, then it is equally reasonable and logical to assume that the Obama administration bears some responsibility for the horror that happened to Chuck de Caro and Lynne Russell in Albuquerque.

If they are truly serious about what is good for the poor, why not expand the scope of this $2.2 billion government give-away program by mandating a warning to all who sign for and receive a free cell phone. The warning: “Any person who utilizes this device in the commission of a crime is guilty of a federal offense and is subject to both fine and imprisonment.”

SEE ALSO: Second Amendment’s Value Evident After Motel 6 Incident

For links to other articles of interest as well as photos and commentary, join me on Facebook and Twitter.  Please show your support by buying my books and encouraging your friends and loved ones to do the same.  To learn how to order signed copies, click here. Thanks in advance!

Click on image above to order Bob's books.

Click on image above to order Bob’s books.

Democratic Treachery Rears Its Ugly Head

EDITOR’S NOTE: Below is a guest post by Paul R. Hollrah, a resident of Oklahoma who writes from the perspective of a veteran conservative politico and retired corporate government relations executive whose life experience includes having served two terms as a member of the Electoral College. Even if you disagree with him, this piece will make you think long and hard.

DEMS by David Donar at http://politicalgraffiti.wordpress.com.

DEMS by David Donar at http://politicalgraffiti.wordpress.com.

As we enter the preliminaries for the 2016 presidential election, Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media… including such heretofore “fair-minded” journalists as Chris Wallace of  Fox News Sunday… are trotting out their favorite “gotcha” questions, reserved exclusively for Republican candidates. To date, their two favorites are: “Are you personally opposed to gay Americans or same-sex marriage?” and “If you knew then what you know now, would you have sent U.S. ground troops into Iraq in 2003?”

No less a liberal icon than Bob Woodward of the Washington Post has set the record straight on the buildup to the Iraq War. In a May 25 appearance on Fox News Sunday, Woodward agreed that George W. Bush may have made mistakes, but that to say he had lied to get us into war was “grossly unfair and inaccurate.” He said, “I spent 18 months looking at how Bush decided to invade Iraq… lots of mistakes… but it was Bush telling George Tenet the CIA director, ‘Don’t let anyone stretch the case on WMD.’ He was the one who was skeptical.”

Woodward continued, “And if you try to summarize why we went into Iraq, it was momentum. That war plan kept getting better and easier, and finally at the end people were saying, ‘Hey, look, it’ll only take a week or two.’ And early on it looked like it was going to take a year or eighteen months, and so Bush pulled the trigger. A mistake certainly can be argued, and there’s an abundance of evidence. But there was no lie in this that I could find.”

Throughout calendar year 2002, policy-makers in Washington and around the world searched for ways in which to eliminate the threat posed by the weapons development programs of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Finally, on November 8, 2002, the U.N. Security Council adopted, unanimously, Resolution 1441. Under Resolution 1441, the Security Council recognized “the threat Iraq’s noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security.”

Resolution 1441 affirmed that Security Council Resolution 678 of November 29, 1990, authorized member nations to “use all necessary means (emphasis added) to uphold and implement Resolution 660 of August 2, 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660, and to restore international peace and security in the area.” It was the authority of the U.N. that member states relied upon in their decision to use military force against Iraq.

Few members of Congress were anxious to see American ground forces engaged in a ground war in the Middle East. Accordingly, during the summer of 2002, under the theory that no dictator can remain a dictator unless his people believe him to be both omnipotent and omniscient, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), chaired by Porter Goss (R-FL), authorized funds for an “Infowar,” or SOFTWAR, offensive against Iraq… where SOFTWAR is defined as “the hostile utilization of global television to shape another nation’s will by changing its view of reality.” The goal of the SOFTWAR offensive was to remove one or both of the omnipotence/omniscience advantages from Saddam, advancing the day when the Iraqi people would find it beneficial to overthrow the dictator. (The SOFTWAR concept was the brainchild of my longtime friend, Chuck de Caro, an Information Warfare lecturer at the National Defense University and other agencies of the U.S. defense/intelligence establishment.)

The SOFTWAR offensive authorized by HPSCI, as a supplement to its FY 2003 defense authorization, read, in part, as follows:

SOFTWAR

The budget request contained $63.9 million in PE65710D8Z for Classified Programs for the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence)…

The Committee notes that information operations (IO) is increasingly becoming a more significant weapon in modern military, and moreover, asymmetric operations…

The Committee is somewhat concerned that insufficient consideration is paid to developing a capability to shape the information sphere for asymmetric operations… The Committee understands that there has been proposed a concept called Infowar, in which intelligence analysis of the threat Infosphere is coupled with the knowledge management functions of television, and an offensive management plan is developed for execution. The Committee notes that this concept is different from more traditional IO approaches in that it does not “attack” the threat directly, but rather through the threat’s intended public information consumers. The Committee believes this is a worthwhile new approach and believes the Intelligence Community should pursue it vigorously.

Therefore, the Committee recommends $73.9 million in PE65710D8Z, an increase of $10.0 Million in Classified Programs-C3I, for the SOFTWAR program.

However, the U.S. Senate, comprised of 50 Republicans and 50 Democrats, changed from Republican to Democratic control on May 24, 2001, when Sen. Jim Jeffords (R-VT) left the Republican Party to become an Independent, aligning himself with senate Democrats. As a result, when the HPSCI authorization arrived in the U.S. Senate as a supplement to the FY 2003 Defense Appropriations bill, senate Democrats decided that it was more important for them to have a political issue to use against G.W. Bush in his 2004 reelection campaign than to avert a ground war in Iraq.

During the months of September and October 2002, when the HPSCI proposal was hopelessly stalled in the U.S. Senate, I assisted de Caro in lobbying key senators, seeking to gain their support for HPSCI’s SOFTWAR offensive.   We met with senior staff aides to then-Sen. Dick Shelby (R-AL), vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and then-Sen. John Warner (R-VA), the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee. And we met on several occasions with senior aides to then-Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, who, along with the late Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, were the key players in the effort to fund the SOFTWAR offensive in Iraq. But the enthusiasm of aides to Rockefeller and Byrd were not in sync with the political games that their employers were playing.

While Democrats made impassioned speeches on the floor of the senate, insisting that the Congress could not give George W. Bush the war powers he sought, and that a way had to be found to remove Saddam Hussein through non-violent means, they were busy behind closed doors instructing the staff of the Senate Appropriations Committee to kill the HPSCI SOFTWAR authorization… our last best hope of averting a ground war in Iraq. Senate Democrats were so intent upon creating an issue to use against G.W. Bush that when they were asked to fund the project for a single dollar, just to get the offensive “in the pipeline,” with supplemental funding to be added during the 108th Congress, they refused even that.

U.S. Army soldiers move down a street as they start a clearing mission in Dora, Iraq, on May 3, 2007.  Soldiers from the 2nd Platoon, Alpha Company, 2nd Battalion, 3rd Infantry Regiment, 3rd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division patrolled the streets in Dora.  DoD photo by Spc. Elisha Dawkins, U.S. Army.

U.S. Army soldiers move down a street as they start a clearing mission in Dora, Iraq, on May 3, 2007. Soldiers from the 2nd Platoon, Alpha Company, 2nd Battalion, 3rd Infantry Regiment, 3rd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division patrolled the streets in Dora. DoD photo by Spc. Elisha Dawkins, U.S. Army.

Thus, as coalition forces prepared for war with seeming unstoppable momentum, the Iraq War Powers Act, P.L. 107-243, passed the Republican-controlled House on October 10, 2002, by a vote of 296-133, and the Democrat-controlled Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23. Twenty-eight Democrats, including Senators Rockefeller, Clinton, Kerry, and Biden voted in favor of the war powers resolution.

But that was not the last we heard of Senator Rockefeller’s role in sabotaging the Iraq war effort. In the December 3, 2005, edition of the Canada Free Press, writer Joan Swirsky published an article describing events before and during the Iraq War, titled, Rockefeller’s Treachery.

Ms. Swirsky reminds us of Rockefeller’s Nov. 14, 2005, appearance on Fox News Sunday, during the period in which he served as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. In that interview, Rockefeller recalled, “I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 (months before the HPSCI proposal was approved by the House of Representatives) to Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that G.W. Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq – that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.” It was an entirely baseless charge.

Ms. Swirsky went on to say, “By himself, and fully armed with America’s most sensitive intelligence, Senator Rockefeller decided to go to three Arab countries – including Syria, which is on the State Department’s list of terrorist regimes and a close ally of Saddam Hussein – and literally alert them to what might befall a neighboring Arab state.” Putting this sharply into context, Ms. Swirsky reminds us that, “This was Senator Rockefeller’s judgment only four months after September 11th and a full year before President Bush expressed any intention to go to war.”

Finally, on March 20, 2003, with all multinational coalition forces in place, the invasion of Iraq commenced. And while Democrats continue to this day to try to convince the American people that G.W. Bush and Dick Cheney lied to launch the Iraq War, there is a strong case to be made that it was their own politically-motivated treachery that was most responsible for our entrance into the war. In that war, some 4,500 American men and women, and countless Iraqis, paid with their lives. Clearly, their blood is on Democrat hands, not on Bush and Cheney’s hands.

For links to other articles of interest as well as photos and commentary, join me on Facebook and Twitter.  Please show your support by buying my books and encouraging your friends and loved ones to do the same.  To learn how to order signed copies, click here. Thanks in advance!

Click on image above to order Bob's books.

Click on image above to order Bob’s books.

Investigation Reveals Never-Before-Published Truths About Early Days of ‘Global War on Terror’ at Guantanamo Bay

To mark the upcoming 13th anniversary of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, I’ve chosen to share an excerpt from my second nonfiction book, The Clapper Memo. Appearing below and slightly modified for stand-alone publication, it reveals never-before-published details about what took place at Guantanamo Bay during the early years of the so-called “Global War On Terror” that followed:

080610-A-7322C-096

Within hours of the attacks that left thousands of Americans dead and injured and exposed vulnerabilities in our nation’s defenses, President George W. Bush tried to calm fears and assure Americans – including many who wanted to exact some form of retaliation against those they believed were responsible for the attacks — that everything was under control September 11, 2001.

“America was targeted for attack because we’re the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world,” he told Americans during a nationally televised speech the night of the attacks. “And no one will keep that light from shining.”

He used a more-ominous tone to end his remarks.

“The search is underway for those who are behind these evil acts,” he said. “I’ve directed the full resources for our intelligence and law enforcement communities to find those responsible and bring them to justice. We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.”

Two days later, President Bush spoke again — this time before a joint session of Congress.

Among other things, he thanked lawmakers for “delivering $40 billion to rebuild our communities and meet the needs of our military.”

It went without saying that our nation was about to enter a new era of warfare unlike any Americans had seen before. For nearly nine years, it would be referred to as the “Global War On Terror.”

On October 7, 2001, at 12:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, the United States and Great Britain began using air, land, and sea assets to launch bombs and cruise missiles against Taliban positions across Afghanistan. The first official GWOT campaign, Operation Enduring Freedom, had begun, and Americans were now fighting in unfamiliar territory — in places with names like Bagram, Jalalabad, and Kandahar.

Three months into the war and thousands of miles from the rugged, mountainous terrain where Soviet forces had fought unsuccessfully against Afghan resistance forces (a.k.a., “Mujahideen”) a quarter-century earlier, the first 20 of more than 700 detainees (a.k.a., “enemy combatants” or “prisoners of war”) arrived at the U.S. Naval Station Guantanamo (a.k.a., “GITMO”).

At the little-talked-about facility where the United States has maintained a military presence since 1903, the detainees would be subjected to a variety of interrogation methods employed by U.S. military and intelligence officials seeking information that might help the U.S.-led war effort succeed.

News reports about those interrogation methods — both real and imagined — would make the name of the U.S. outpost on the southeast tip of Cuba familiar to people worldwide.

One man with more than a passing interest in what detainees might reveal to interrogators was Army Major General Geoffrey D. Miller. Ten months after the first detainee arrived at GITMO, he assumed command of Joint Task Force Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO).

As head of the joint (a.k.a., “purple suit”) organization comprised of people from a variety of military agencies, he was responsible for everything having to do with the detainees, including the arduous task of interrogating each of them.

Despite the seemingly urgent mission of learning as much as possible from the detainees, General Miller found it difficult during his first year on island to obtain polygraph support for his mission, according to “Charlie.”

Not his real name, which I’m withholding for security reasons, Charlie served as operations officer (i.e., second in charge) of the Defense Intelligence Agency’s Interrogation Control Element (ICE) at GITMO from early 2003 to mid-2004, longer than any officer preceding him in that post.

Well after his departure from Cuba, Charlie explained in a “To Whom It May Concern” letter, dated October 5, 2005, that polygraphers had repeatedly cited “numerous worldwide commitments” in their negative responses to General Miller’s requests for assistance. In addition, he wrote, “We were not a priority.” NOTE: I was able to obtain a copy of Charlie’s letter on the condition I not reveal his real name or the name of the person who provided me the copy. Though the author listed several individuals by name in his letter, I opted to remove most of those names due to concerns about their personal safety. Only the general’s name remains due to the fact that his position as commander of Joint Task Force-Guantanamo received much publicity.

Charlie went on to explain how polygraphers began to show interest — but only after his proposal to move forward with Computer Voice Stress Analyzer® Proof of Principle (PoP) testing at GITMO received approval from the ICE chief, a colonel.

In addition, he wrote about some of the problems GITMO interrogators had experienced with the polygraph. His words revealed he did not appear to be constrained by the boundaries of official Army thinking as he shared details about his 16-month stay on island, which included being there “when the polygraph was first employed on a more permanent basis.”

“We had to close a couple of our interrogation booths so that they could be dedicated to polygraphers and their equipment,” Charlie wrote before adding a bit about what he knew about both polygraph and CVSA® from previous observation and training.

“The primary goal of any polygraph or CVSA examination is to facilitate voluntary admissions and confessions from the subject,” he explained before noting, “Voluntary admissions and confessions are most likely to be truthful.”

Charlie continued his letter by explaining that a conversation takes place during the pre-test phase to convince the subject “if he is deceptive in his answers, he will be found out” and “he must clear his mind of anything that may be bothering him that would cause a response to appear deceptive during the examination” in order to successfully “pass” the examination.

In other words, Charlie explained, “He must ‘come clean’ with the examiner.”

“During the pretest phase, the examiner can also gather information and ‘tailor’ questions designed to gather additional information from the subject at the conclusion of the examination,” Charlie wrote.

Deeper into his letter, Charlie highlighted several distinct advantages CVSA® has over the polygraph.

He explained that CVSA® technology is more portable, less intrusive (microphone as opposed to galvanic, heart, blood pressure, and breathing monitors) and requires less training on the part of the examiners.

Further, he wrote, the CVSA® test is easier to explain to the subject before it is administered, test results are easier to explain to the subject, and charts for both control questions and relevant questions can be shown and explained. That, in turn, makes post-test questioning much easier.

Charlie pointed out that there are no “inconclusive” test results with CVSA® and that examiners can identify the questions to which the subject’s answers appeared to show deception — an aspect that helps to focus additional questions and subsequent interrogations.

Conversely, Charlie noted that polygraphers would not identify the questions about which interrogation subjects appeared to be deceptive. Instead, they would only say the test showed “no deception indicated,” “deception indicated” or “inconclusive.”

Charlie used some pointed language to close his letter:

“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.”

Beyond Charlie’s letter, the content of an After Action Review (AAR) written by another senior interrogation official at GITMO — a man I’ll call “Hank” — paints a clear picture of the CVSA® PoP testing results. As was the case with Charlie’s letter, I was able to obtain a copy of the AAR written by Hank from a confidential source promised anonymity.

Corroborating timelines and other details from Charlie’s letter, Hank explained that CVSA® PoP testing began August 18, 2003, with seven GITMO interrogators being trained for six days in how to conduct exams using CVSA®. Equipment and training were provided by NITV.

Eight days after the training began, GITMO interrogators began using CVSA® as a tool to assist in targeting future interrogation efforts, he continued. Their efforts at the facility — then home to more than 600 detainees from Afghanistan and Iraq as well as several other Middle Eastern and Southwest Asian countries — continued for 30 days, through September 26, 2003.

Hank explained that it became obvious during the test period that CVSA® “would become an invaluable tool for focusing the efforts of intelligence collection.”

By virtue of using CVSA®, he continued, “interrogations could be focused on areas where deception is indicated, versus wasting time and energy on avenues of exploitation that would have little to no value. The outcome of the 30 day test period has shown outstanding results, and has generated a high degree of interest and satisfaction among the intelligence community.”

In the remainder of the document, Hank explained that the seven trained interrogators conducted 45 separate examinations on 33 different examinees. The examinations were conducted in English, Arabic, Pashtu, and Spanish on examinees — all male — who ranged in age from 17 to 65. Language was not a barrier.

Interestingly, Hank noted that, while the majority of the exams were conducted overtly, nine were conducted covertly (i.e., recorded for later analysis or having the computer located in an area not visible to examinee).

Six examinations were scored as “No Deception Indicated”; 38 as “Deception Indicated”; and one as “unable to be scored due to recording difficulties experienced with the recording media” — a non-CVSA® technical glitch, Hank explained. When it became obvious that CVSA® PoP testing had yielded stellar results, GITMO officials stopped the testing halfway into the planned 60-day test period. They had seen enough.

Early the next year, National Institute for Truth Verification officials were contacted by DIA’s chief interrogator on island — a man I’ll call “Ronald” — who proposed the company enter into a two-year contract to provide the agency a subject-matter expert for the purpose of training additional interrogators at GITMO and providing other expertise as needed. A contract was signed and, by mid-2004, the company had one of its senior instructors working on the island.

During the next 12 months, according to NITV officials, CVSA® was used at GITMO more than 90 times and achieved a success rate — defined as developing new, previously- unknown intelligence which was independently confirmed or confirmed existing information that otherwise could not be verified — of 92 percent despite the fact most exams were conducted using interpreters.

That level of success stood in stark contrast to the “inconclusive” findings that had resulted from 20 percent of the polygraph exams administered previously at GITMO.

Despite the apparent effectiveness of CVSA vs. polygraph, CVSA was effectively “killed” at GITMO while only halfway through with the two-year contract with the DIA. Likewise, the DIA’s man in charge of the ICE at GITMO was reassigned elsewhere, and the polygraph became the only tool interrogators were allowed to use at the detention facility.

To learn more about The Clapper Memo and read some of the endorsements it has received, click here. To order a copy of the book, click here.

Click on image above to order Bob's books.

Click on image above to order Bob’s books.