More than three weeks after its release, THE CLAPPER MEMO remains high on Amazon’s lists of “Top 100 Hot New Releases” in two key categories.
On May 9, I shared news about how I had received a response from officials at the Defense Intelligence Agency to a Freedom of Information Act request I had submitted almost 10 months earlier. I found it strange and less than coincidental that DIA’s response came less than two weeks after the release of my book, THE CLAPPER MEMO, which is critical about the agency’s involvement with the subject matter of my FOIA request. Well within the 60-day window available to appeal the agency’s response, I forwarded the following letter, postmarked with today’s date, to the DIA’s FOIA Office in Washington, D.C.:
Almost 10 months after I submitted a Freedom of Information Act Request (Case #0329-2012) to your agency, I received a letter (dated May 2, 2013) from Alesia Y. Williams, Chief of the FOIA Staff, containing the Defense Intelligence Agency’s response to said request. Unfortunately, YOUR AGENCY’S FULFILLMENT OF MY REQUEST FALLS FAR SHORT OF REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS.
My initial FOIA request of July 16, 2012, read as follows:
In accordance with 5 USC, and Public Law 106-554, I would like to request copies of any and all initial and follow-up contracts (i.e., solicitations, contracts, statements of work and task orders) related to the Portable Credibility Assessment Screening System (PCASS) or Preliminary Credibility Assessment Screening System (PCASS) that have been awarded by any Department of Defense agency to Lafayette Instrument Company of Lafayette, Indiana, and any other contractors, academic institutions, laboratories and subcontractors from January 1, 2000, to present.
In responding to my request, you included only 12 pages of documentation dating back as far as June 25, 2010. That, by any stretch of the imagination, is UNSATISFACTORY; therefore, I must contest the $155.80 assessment for “professional search and review time of 3.5 hours at $44.00 per hour, reproduction and release costs of 12 pages at 15¢ per page.” Until such time as a genuine effort is made on behalf of your agency to provide the requested documentation, I shall not remit payment as requested.
Why are DIA officials so reluctant to provide documentation related to PCASS (a.k.a. “portable polygraph”) contracts? For starters, I suspect they know the information will, when made public, damage the credibility of these professionals allegedly in the business of credibility assessment. For more answers to that question, however, you’ll have to read THE CLAPPER MEMO.
Thanks to a lot of friends in talk radio, the “buzz” continues to spread about THE CLAPPER MEMO, my recently-released second nonfiction book that connects the dots between three memos declaring the polygraph the Department of Defense’s only approved credibility assessment tool and hundreds of U.S. and coalition casualties of “Green-on-Blue” or “Insider” attacks in Afghanistan. To date, radio audiences I’ve encountered have been appalled to hear that DoD officials have placed a tool more-effective than polygraph off limits to DoD personnel.
During the 5 p.m. hour (Central time) tonight, I’ll be a guest of Dr. Paul A. Ibbetson on the “Conscience of Kansas” radio program on KRMR – The Patriot 105.7 in Great Bend, Kan. The fact that Dr. Ibbetson is, in addition to being a radio program host, an author and a retired chief of police not unfamiliar with law enforcement’s use of the polygraph, should help generate lively and interesting discussion.
On Sunday at 8:30 p.m. Central, I’ll make a guest appearance on “The Marc Cox Show” on St. Louis’ FM NewsTalk 97.1. Host Marc Cox is a veteran of more than two decades of television news reporting and knows how to get to the heart of any issue; therefore, this show should involve a lot of great discussion as well.
This morning, I read an article by McClatchy News reporter Marisa Taylor. Published in the Raleigh, N.C., News-Observer, its polygraph-focused content seems to contradict what an FBI supervisory special agent told members of a subcommittee of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary about the polygraph in 1997.
Taylor reported the nation’s top law enforcement agency has been turning down applicants because they fail their polygraph tests. Such moves fly in the face of testimony offered by FBI Supervisory Special Agent (Dr.) Drew Campbell Richardson.
In a piece I published one week ago, I highlighted Richardson’s description of polygraph screening as “completely without any theoretical foundation and has absolutely no validity.”
Am I surprised by what Taylor uncovered or that the FBI continues to rely on often-criticized century-old technology? No.
After all, I spent much of the past four years learning about the polygraph and those loyal to it who, for more than 40 years, have waged a “turf war” against any and all challengers to their domain as the federal government’s credibility assessment technology of choice.
Unlike the wars that have been fought in Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam and elsewhere since the early 1970s, this turf war I uncovered has been fought overseas and at home.
Most recently, it has contributed to hundreds of American and coalition casualties in Afghanistan in so-called “Green-on-Blue” or “Insider” attacks — that is, when so-called Afghan allies turn upon their foreign colleagues, often with deadly impact.
Months after McClatchy News published reporter Marisa Taylor‘s series, The Polygraph Files, she continues to provide fodder that supports the findings I share in my recently-released second nonfiction book, THE CLAPPER MEMO.
In one piece published today in the Miami Herald, Taylor points out the close ties between polygraph loyalists inside and outside the federal government. Among those mentioned in the article and in my book at the folks at Lafayette Instrument Company, the nation’s largest polygraph manufacturer, and at the American Polygraph Association, the world’s largest association of polygraph professionals.
In a second piece published in the same newspaper, Taylor points out a potentially-devastating glitch in the widely-used polygraph.
Both of Taylor’s findings support my contention that a win-at-all-cost “turf war” against any and all challengers to their technology has been waged by polygraph loyalists for more than 40 years against any. Further, Taylor’s articles support my findings that the reliance of the federal government — and, in particular, the Department of Defense — on the polygraph has resulted in U.S. military and intelligence personnel facing higher-than-necessary risk of becoming casualties in places like Afghanistan.
I highly recommend you read all of Taylor’s reports mentioned above and, afterward, suggest you order a copy of my book, THE CLAPPER MEMO. When you do, you’ll learn never-before-published details about the turf war and its connection to “Green-on-Blue” or “Insider” attacks in Afghanistan.
UPDATE 5/21/2013 at 11:36 a.m. Central: The U.S. government has pledged $23 million to help improve security and fight drug trafficking and other crimes in the eastern Caribbean region. Among other things, according to this report, the money will be used in part for training and to buy polygraph equipment.
Thanks to everyone who’s helping get the word out about this book which, by the way, comes highly recommended.
While three strong endorsements are helping the book garner serious attention, the true story contained inside this book sells itself.