It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jailed NSA Leaker Reality Winner: Being White is Terrorism

page: 8
38
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: queenofswords

Okay. Not every clearance requires a polygraph. I don't know what you're looking for with your question.


I just find it odd that a job requiring a TS clearance for an intelligence-related job would not require a polygraph. People with SC can go "dirty" at any time, slip up, turn tail...you get the point.

I just wonder why a poly isn't standard for these types of positions.


Because they don't work and easy to beat. If they do a polygragh it's just an excuse for an interview. And they are about to deny your clearance. You can't base even someone's removal on polygraph. Just having a rock in your shoemail can scam the test.




posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Vasa Croe



I'd say that they cleared a person who was intent on leaking docs shows a pretty poor clearance procedure.


How would they have known she would eventually leak something. Hell, I would say that she didn't even get in to her position with the intent to leak info.

You're being disingenuous and blaming procedures for the act of one individual.



If not, then why don't we have leaks all over the place? Looks more like she was possibly "streamlined" in with a sponsor or something....if that's the case then I'd like to see who sponsored her as they should be reprimanded as well. That's the only way she could get clearance quicker and would suggest an actual conspiracy.


Are you just making things up? It appears you have no clue what you are talking about.


No, I'm not making things up. I had Secret clearance for years and it was pushed through by a sponsor at Lockheed because of a large project I was running for their global combat support services branch. Cut my time down from 6 months to 1 to get clearance because of the massive backlog they had at the time.

Blaming procedures? That's the only line of defense you have for clearances....procedures. if you miss something that bites your as s later then you missed something and it should come back on you.

Not sure if you're familiar with how it works, but for my secret clearance they spoke to many family members and friends. For my FBI clearance for the MBI it was even more in depth. They came back with questions about things from when I was much younger that I had forgotten about.

They wouldn't know an intent to leak, but part of the background checks has to do with integrity and surely this wasn't the first time something like this had reared its head in her life.....while probably not a leak before, in her career in the military I would have to believe she screwed up somewhere along the way.


Vasa, then you can probably explain to me why many of these Top Secret contractor jobs do not require a polygraph. Very curious about that.


No idea. The FBI certainly does, I had to fly to a different state for mine. They are much more thorough. While polys can be beaten, the average Joe won't beat them. Once you have actually been photographed by a federal agent you realize just how thorough they are. Much of the background check is done prior to the poly then the questions formulated based on the background check to see if your answers and their findings line up.

While you can beat a standard poly pretty easily, you would have to train to be a background check poly from the FBI.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 04:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: queenofswords

Okay. Not every clearance requires a polygraph. I don't know what you're looking for with your question.


I just find it odd that a job requiring a TS clearance for an intelligence-related job would not require a polygraph. People with SC can go "dirty" at any time, slip up, turn tail...you get the point.

I just wonder why a poly isn't standard for these types of positions.


Because they don't work and easy to beat. If they do a polygragh it's just an excuse for an interview. And they are about to deny your clearance. You can't base even someone's removal on polygraph. Just having a rock in your shoemail can scam the test.


If they are combined with the background check it is virtually impossible to beat because most of the questions are based on the check to see if your story and answers are the same as what they find.

For the FBI is is well into the process of background checks before they poly you....I can tell you that there is no way I could have tricked it. Had I trained for years and made up stories that I told myself long enough to actually believe then also had a network of people doing the same for just as long to back up what I put in the quesrions....then maybe.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: xuenchen

Who cares. The doc is real. That's the important thing.
It's astounding how you weren't saying that about Wiki leaks documents all I read was, muhhhhhhhhhhh RUSSIA.

In fact even today Noone is talking about how hillary was under FBI investigation, An actual one not a politically motivated one, She went nearly a year without press conference, documents exposed from the DNC REAL DOCUMENTS, She is coughing up God knows what at every rally, cheating Bernie sanders, She cheated at the presidential debates, and she damn near died after passing out at the 9/11 memorial,

But muhhhhhhhhhhhhh Russia who cares about leaks when it has already been established and is not unprecedented that we can just point fingers at the source.
edit on 6-6-2017 by omniEther because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

So, she leaked classified info, worthless dribble, but classified nonetheless.

Gimme the proof Orange boy slept with Vlad or # off.

Simple.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 10:50 PM
link   
At the same time, the democrats and dnc keep focusing on Russian hacking, Wikileaks, and the interference rather than the "documents that are real" that showed dnc corruption....



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 11:22 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa


The government cannot fire a contractor.

Not directly, but they can fire them indirectly. All contracts contain a clause that gives the government the right to void the contract for cause. The government can also revoke any clearance at any time for any reason, which means the person holding it is unable to continue in their duties, aka 'fired.'

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 11:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: omniEther

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: xuenchen

Who cares. The doc is real. That's the important thing.
It's astounding how you weren't saying that about Wiki leaks documents all I read was, muhhhhhhhhhhh RUSSIA.

In fact even today Noone is talking about how hillary was under FBI investigation, An actual one not a politically motivated one, She went nearly a year without press conference, documents exposed from the DNC REAL DOCUMENTS, She is coughing up God knows what at every rally, cheating Bernie sanders, She cheated at the presidential debates, and she damn near died after passing out at the 9/11 memorial,

But muhhhhhhhhhhhhh Russia who cares about leaks when it has already been established and is not unprecedented that we can just point fingers at the source.


Meh...you can pretty much write sillyolme and a few others off here as trolls regurgitating MSM with nothing to show for it every single time.

Just look at post history and see how many times any have been correct....

If I had a record like that I'd quit trying....I'd imagine it sucks being wrong ALL the time.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 11:37 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

I'm not Vasa, but I think I can answer that. Polygraphs actually have poor accuracy.

It is completely possible for someone to have enough mental control to 'trick' their physiology into responding to a lie as though it were truth. This is an easier task for those with strong personal feelings about the subject being investigated; if they believe their actions were legal and even heroic, despite being illegal, their physiology could react as though they were being truthful.

Someone with a complete lack of morality can pass a lie detector easily, because they do not have the physical reactions to lying that most do.

Another trick is to convince oneself that the baseline questions are lies even though they are truthful. This is easier than tricking oneself into believing a lie is the truth, and it completely confounds the test. All polygraphs depend on a baseline established by asking questions like "state your name." The answer is known prior to the test, and so establishes the physical response to a truth. Variations from this baseline by a certain amount are then assumed to be lies. If the baseline questions show the lie response, the other lies will match up and be assumed to be true.

Additionally, excitable people can give false positives simply due to the stress of undergoing a polygraph.

Finally, the results are not binary. There is no buzzer that goes off at a lie. The results have to be interpreted by the polygraph tester, which leaves a margin for error.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 11:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: queenofswords

I'm not Vasa, but I think I can answer that. Polygraphs actually have poor accuracy.

It is completely possible for someone to have enough mental control to 'trick' their physiology into responding to a lie as though it were truth. This is an easier task for those with strong personal feelings about the subject being investigated; if they believe their actions were legal and even heroic, despite being illegal, their physiology could react as though they were being truthful.

Someone with a complete lack of morality can pass a lie detector easily, because they do not have the physical reactions to lying that most do.

Another trick is to convince oneself that the baseline questions are lies even though they are truthful. This is easier than tricking oneself into believing a lie is the truth, and it completely confounds the test. All polygraphs depend on a baseline established by asking questions like "state your name." The answer is known prior to the test, and so establishes the physical response to a truth. Variations from this baseline by a certain amount are then assumed to be lies. If the baseline questions show the lie response, the other lies will match up and be assumed to be true.

Additionally, excitable people can give false positives simply due to the stress of undergoing a polygraph.

Finally, the results are not binary. There is no buzzer that goes off at a lie. The results have to be interpreted by the polygraph tester, which leaves a margin for error.

TheRedneck


Completely agree. My context was a poly applied with a very extensive background check done prior.

I could easily pass one with no background info on me for a criminal investigation. When it comes to having one done when the examiner has intimate knowledge of your past it becomes very different.

It is much harder, really near impossible, when you have answers from others involved where more than one can corroborate certain things about you from your past or possibly even have told an investigator from your background check something you had not mentioned. If this occurs, you can say whatever, but they have either a similar answer or a different answer. If multiples dont corroborate then one is not telling the truth. Typically it is the person getting the poly.

In my experience, they typically only ask questions that more than one person in their background check has corroborated and answer to. So if I gave a different answer then they would either have to assume I was lying about an incident or the other multiple people were lying about the same incident.

It is impossible to cheat it when certain factors are in place.

This is why the FBI does a very extensive background check, then the poly, then another check.



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 12:20 AM
link   
OK, I didn't join the thread to answer technical questions... I joined to find out what was really going on. ATS gives me a perspective I can't get anywhere else.

My take so far:

I believe Ms. Winner is the tip of the iceberg, an idealistic young-un who got a clearance because she never had a chance to do anything worthy of denying it. She made no secret on social media that she despised Trump, and I believe this led to her leaking information in a mistaken belief that she was being somehow heroic by trying to damage Trump. Of course, nothing could be farther from the truth... she was being criminal by violating National Security.

But I doubt that's the whole story.

Ms. Winner is young and idealistic, but not that bright. Her social media postings show she never fathomed the idea that her very livelihood she owed to the same government she was trying to undermine. Her admission of guilt, apparently given easily, will likely get her 3 years or so in a Federal penitentiary. She showed no savviness in covering her tracks. I doubt, based on this, that she had the idea to leak the documents... which means she was a pawn for someone else.

None of that excuses her actions. She's going away, as is proper.

But this is a break for the DoJ. I fully expect a plea deal for her to turn on whoever encouraged her to act. She faces a maximum of ten years... one year instead would look pretty tempting once she realizes her peril. It is even possible she will avoid prison entirely if she cooperates fully, but I don't think that will happen.

Ironically, her actions do not reflect on Trump. The documents, jf accurate, never implicate Trump. They only expose phishing attacks against the manufacturer of the electronic voting machines, probably a 'hail, Mary' attempt by the Kremlin to test our electoral security. That actually doesn't surprise me in the least; I would be more surprised if the Russians had not tried to test our security.

Reality Winner... I believe Shakespeare would say something like, "What's in a name? That which we call a criminal, by any other name would still serve time."

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 12:20 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

On the FX show the Americans they advised Nina, when undergoing a lie detector test, to squeeze her anus and that would help passing the test even if lying.

Can't corroborate whether that holds up in reality.



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 12:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

In that context, I propose that the polygraph is not used to test for truthfulness (that would be redundant) but rather to test for integrity. The most dangerous people to hold a clearance are those who can beat a polygraph, because they can have a poorly-developed (or nonexistent) sense of right and wrong.

I could possibly still pass a polygraph (in my younger years I could do so with no problem at all), but in my case it is due to mental conditioning. If I were sitting looking across the desk at a FBI or NSA tester, there's no way I would even try. Some things are just too important.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 12:32 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

You say she's not too bright and lived an inexperienced life and judge her by her social media account.

Yet totally ignore other information such as

Winner was a linguist in the US Air Force and speaks Pashto, Farsi and Dari,

and

Winner served in the Air Force from December 2010 to 2016. Her rank was Senior Airman and her last duty title was cryptologic language analyst, according to the Air Force. She provided support to missions and received the Air Force Commendation Medal in 2016, which is for members who have "distinguished themselves by meritorious achievement and service." She "provided over 1,900 hours of enemy intelligence exploitation and assisted in geolocating 120 enemy combatants," the award stated.
link

Being a linguist and serving 6 years for the Air Force, becoming Senior Airman and being awarded a medal for her service isn't what I'd call "Not Bright".

I think that is a pretty harsh and biased and uninformed knee jerk opinion on your part. You may not like what she did, but at least she's owning up to it. Just because you don't agree with her actions doesn't mean you should be talking sh*t about her like you are. You're judging her solely by this one thing and her social media comments. That's kinda lame.



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 12:39 AM
link   
a reply to: MysticPearl

Hahaha, no, that's just TV.

A polygraph works by measuring several autonomic reactions, including heart rate, skin resistance, and skin temperature to name a few. All of these respond to mental thoughts in most people. They are also beyond the ability of most people to control (most don't even realize they are happening).

When a normal person lies, a part of them knows it is a lie, and that knowledge triggers the autonomic system to make those changes. The polygraph records them and the tester uses the recorded data to determine if the reaction indicated a lie. Squeezing any muscle would only serve to move the baseline, not changing the tell-tale deviations.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 12:53 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

She may well be the greatest linguist who has ever lived; a criminal mastermind she ain't.

I am reminded of Timothy McVeigh. The media story was that he was some sort of 'explosives expert' from the military. He did serve in an explosives role, but an explosives expert he wasn't. I watched several interviews with him. I have forgotten more about explosives than he ever knew, and don't consider myself an expert in the field.

Winner was obviously not bright enough to realize that she was directly violating the rules she had to be trained in to get her position. She wasn't bright enough to even attempt to hide her activities well. Ergo, she wasn't bright enough to have schemed out her actions. She's a pawn, not a genius.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

And now she can analyze all her credentials, merits, and accomplishments while she serves time in a Federal Prison.

Can't wait for the movie.






posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: xuenchen

Who cares. The doc is real. That's the important thing.


When it's Russia the right says" it's the content of the leak that matters not the leaker"
When it's Reality Winner the right can't stop frothing at the mouth long enough to realize their hypocrisy.



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Anyone 'member:

"The leaks are absolutely real. The news is fake because so much of the news is fake." - Trump


edit on 7-6-2017 by DanteGaland because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 10:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: seasonal

Uh huh...
This goes right along with the name post above.
Totally irrelevant to the story.

Guys? Really?


Don't play that game.

The left wrote the book on this stuff.



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join