Have you seen the truly frightening item on today's SWIFT, on the JREF site? American forces in Afghanistan are to be issued with hand-held lie-detectors to help them sort out the truth when dealing with these lying Muslim beardies. The project is costing about $2.5 million. Apart from the risks to the Americans from unreliably monitored information, how many Afghans are going to be abused, if not actually shot, because of this incredible foolishness? How many villages will be bombed because an informant is thought to be lying when he says there are no Taleban there? This is a perfect illustration of the fact that woo-woo is not just pathetic nonsense, it's dangerous.
Don't over exaggerate.
I'm pretty sure there will be experts involved on this project. The efficiency of 'lie detectors' actually is based on how good the interregator is at interpreting the information with respect to the 'lie detectors' results. Training will be given to the soldiers who are expected to use them.
I'm pretty sure that any major decisions will not be made using the lie detectors, and in modern war innocent people are not bombed anyway. People in afghanistan are being abused and shot anyway, I don't see how thats anything new and I highly doubt it will increase the amount of people shot. It is more likely to reduce the risk of shootings and increase the risk of more violent interrogation techniques.
Is this a serious statement or a joke? ???Originally Posted by ForAllOfThis
I'm guessing you don't have any evidence for this and neither will the US govt.It is more likely to reduce the risk of shootings and increase the risk of more violent interrogation techniques.
They dont work, its dangerous to rely on equipment that does not work. Especially in wartime.
There are usually experts, and "experts", the distinction being one knows what the hell they are doing, and the other merely thinks they know, what the hell they are doing.I'm pretty sure there will be experts involved on this project.
Lie detector tests (polygraph) do not work, they cannot be used as evidences in court. There are multiple reasons a person may give a false positive.The efficiency of 'lie detectors' actually is based on how good the interregator is at interpreting the information with respect to the 'lie detectors' results.
That still does not guarantee that something that does NOT work will suddenly work.Training will be given to the soldiers who are expected to use them.
Well if they really want to ask al quida about the best way to reserve a halaal restaurant on a weekend, I am sure it will be fine. However as a counter terrorism or intelligence tool it is still useless.I'm pretty sure that any major decisions will not be made using the lie detectors,
Whut? ???and in modern war innocent people are not bombed anyway.
Really? So intel gathered by a machine that cannot work is used to plan an intelligence or counter insurgency operation. Suddenly because the intel was usless and gleaned from a person under extreme duress. The operation goes "tits up" and everyone just falls about laughing and saying "hey we werent ready, can we have another go"?People in afghanistan are being abused and shot anyway, I don't see how thats anything new and I highly doubt it will increase the amount of people shot.
I disagree.It is more likely to reduce the risk of shootings and increase the risk of more violent interrogation techniques.
Ok.
I just think your underestimating the intelligence of the officers in the army. I think they will know the risks of using the devices. I'd imagine they will be used by interrogation officers, who will carry on using their normal techniques along side monitoring their biological responses.
I don't suppose you have any proof either?Apart from the risks to the Americans from unreliably monitored information, how many Afghans are going to be abused, if not actually shot, because of this incredible foolishness? How many villages will be bombed because an informant is thought to be lying when he says there are no Taleban there?
I'm not saying this is right by any means. I just think you need to give more credit to the soldiers. Your assuming that they don't know the risks and that they will be making decisions completely based on a lie detector result, which is a wrong assumption.
The soldiers will know better than to rely wholly on the lie detectors? Why should YOU assume THAT? How many people in America believe in lie detectors? A hell of a lot presumably, since they are so widely used. How many believe in homeopathy, reflexology, or any of the host of pseudo-scientific methods we are always discussing on this forum? Why should a soldier seriously doubt the efficacy of something for which he knows the US Defence budget has paid out $2.5 million? It would be positively unpatriotic for him to do so!
This is not just a case of sniping at America. There are worrying signs of lie detectors creeping into official use in the UK. I wouldn't be too astonished if our forces were issued with the things.
I do not understand your point, ForAllOfThis. If the soldiers/pentagon/government know the things don't work then why did they spend all that money? If you are so sure they will not be misused then can you give us an example of proper use which might allay some or my unease?
Im sure they'll just be used alongside normal interrogation techniques. I don't understand why your assuming the armies will be making blind decisions because 'a lie detector said so'.
Soldiers are not stupid. Neither are the people creating the devices.The soldiers will know better than to rely wholly on the lie detectors? Why should YOU assume THAT?'
I believe thats a question for the pentagon/goverment. Not me =).If the soldiers/pentagon/government know the things don't work then why did they spend all that money?
So we imagine that soldiers have someone in custody and they are asking him questions. And he is answering them. And he may or may not be telling the truth. With or without a lie detector. The soldiers decide he is not telling the truth. With or without a lie detector. Now what?
Im inclined to agree with ForAllOfThis i cant see other methods of interrogation being discarded in favour of these devices.
Also i dont really see the jump from soldiers being issued with lie detectors to Afghans being abused and villages being bombed.
I thought lie detectors had a good success rate? 90-95% (though i do stand to be corrected as im not sure)
http://skepdic.com/polygrap.htmlWhen a person lies it is assumed that these physiological changes occur in such a way that a trained expert can detect whether the person is lying. Is there a scientific formula or law which establishes a regular correlation between such physiological changes and lying? No. Is there any scientific evidence that polygraph experts can detect lies using their machine at a significantly better rate than non-experts using other methods? No. There are no machines and no experts that can detect with a high degree of accuracy when people, selected randomly, are lying and when they are telling the truth.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06...ody_polygraph/A lie-detector test or machine is a popular, but inaccurate term for the instrument that records various bodily changes that may provide the basis for a reliable diagnosis of truth or falsehood. The correct term for the instrument is a polygraph.
There is no such thing as a lie-detector, lie-detector test, or lie-detector machine if the terms are taken to mean a mechanical test or device that will produce a clear indication of lying when verbal statements are made.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbo...hology_6.shtmlHowever, polygraphs are not infallible. In particular, their reliability is reduced if the person who administered the test also interprets the results. But when independent experts judge polygraph test results, they often disagree. A dramatic example was provided in the case of Fred Ely, convicted for a 1978 murder in America. The polygraph evidence that helped convict him was later re-examined by three further experts. One of these judged that Ely was telling the truth, while the other two thought the data were inconclusive. As it happens, Ely was innocent, and the real killers were later caught and convicted.
They keep interrogating the prisoner, until they find the truth.
What is your point?
As bindeweed has pointed out, a 'lie detector' instrument is simply a device that measures bodily responses to different statements.
The flaw of your argument is your assumption that the army will only gather intel from the machine to plan an intelligence or counter insurgency operation. Unless you an prove that they are replacing old techniques with the machine or that only the lie detector device will be used to interrogate prisoners then your assumption is unfair. I think it is more likely that the device will be used alongside other techniques and operations will only be planned with substantial evidence, from a variety of techniques and sources.Really? So intel gathered by a machine that cannot work is used to plan an intelligence or counter insurgency operation. Suddenly because the intel was usless and gleaned from a person under extreme duress. The operation goes "tits up" and everyone just falls about laughing and saying "hey we werent ready, can we have another go"?
These people are putting their lives on the line. You can't assume that they will put blind faith into a lie detector device when the cost is so great.
Last edited by ForAllOfThis; 19th April 2008 at 08:28 PM.
Jeez - have you ever met an American soldier?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks