Archive

Ex-cop accused of coaching to beat polygraphs | TribLIVE.com
News

Ex-cop accused of coaching to beat polygraphs

WASHINGTON — A former Oklahoma City police officer has been indicted on charges of training people to lie about crimes during polygraph tests as part of the Obama administration’s unprecedented crackdown on security violators and leakers.

Douglas Williams, 69, is accused of committing mail fraud and obstructing justice in a five-count indictment handed down Thursday in the Western District of Oklahoma. The indictment alleges that Williams, who runs the website Polygraph.com, trained two undercover agents to lie or conceal crimes during government lie-detector tests.

“Williams, who was paid for both training sessions, is alleged to have instructed the individuals to deny having received his polygraph training,” the Justice Department said in a news release sent out Friday.

By attempting to prosecute the instructor, federal officials are adopting a controversial legal stance that sharing such information should be treated as a crime and isn’t protected under the First Amendment in some circumstances. Williams has said he did nothing wrong.

“This is simply an attack on my First Amendment rights to free speech,” said Williams, who was notified of the indictment by a reporter. “This investigation is a way to go after me because I have the audacity to protest the use of the polygraph.”

McClatchy reported last year that one of the federal officials involved in the investigation had said in a speech that he thought that those who “protest the loudest and the longest” against polygraph testing “are the ones that I believe we need to focus our attention on.”

The federal government previously had treated such instructors only as nuisances, partly because the polygraph-beating techniques are unproven. Instructors have openly advertised and discussed their techniques online, in books and on national television. As many as 30 people or businesses across the country claim in Web advertisements that they can teach someone how to beat a polygraph test, according to U.S. government estimates.

John Schwartz, a U.S. Customs and Border Protection official, said in a speech that the effort to criminalize the teaching was part of the Obama administration’s Insider Threat Program, which is intended to deter what the government condemns as betrayals by “trusted insiders” such as Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who revealed the agency’s secret communications data-collection programs.

The administration launched the Insider Threat Program in 2011 after Army Pfc. Bradley Manning, who now goes by Chelsea Manning, downloaded hundreds of thousands of documents from a classified computer network and sent them to WikiLeaks, the anti-government-secrecy group.

“Nothing like this has been done before,” Schwartz said of the legal approach in the speech. “Most certainly our nation’s security will be enhanced.”

Schwartz acknowledged that teaching the techniques, known in polygraph circles as “countermeasures,” isn’t always illegal and might be protected under the First Amendment in some situations.

But instructors may be prosecuted if they know that the people they’re teaching plan to lie about crimes during federal polygraphs, he said.

Last year, an Indiana Little League coach pleaded guilty to similar charges and received eight months in prison.

Prosecutors described Chad Dixon as a “master of deceit” who taught as many as 100 people – including child molesters, intelligence employees and law enforcement applicants – how to beat lie detectors.

However, the federal judge who handed down the sentence against Dixon acknowledged “gray areas” between the constitutional right to discuss the techniques and the crime of teaching someone to lie while undergoing a government polygraph.

“There’s nothing unlawful about maybe 95 percent of the business he conducted,” the judge said of Dixon.

Williams might choose to fight the allegations given that he’s been a vocal opponent of the government’s use of polygraph tests.

Williams, a former police detective and polygrapher, has openly advertised his teachings for three decades, discussing them in detail on “60 Minutes” and other national news programs. A self-professed “crusader” who’s railed against the use of polygraph testing, he testified in congressional hearings that led to the 1988 banning of polygraph testing by most private employers.

The federal government, however, polygraphs about 70,000 people a year for security clearances and jobs. At the same time, most courts won’t allow polygraph results to be submitted as evidence against criminal suspects, citing the machines’ unreliability. Scientists question whether polygraphers can identify liars by interpreting measurements of blood pressure, sweat activity and respiration. Researchers say the polygraph-beating techniques can’t be detected with certainty, either.

Yet investigators confiscated business records from the two men, which included the names of as many as 5,000 people who’d sought polygraph-beating advice, McClatchy reported last year. U.S. agencies determined that at least 20 of them had applied for government and federal contracting jobs and at least half of that group was hired, including by the NSA. It’s unclear how many had been taught by Williams and whether any were caught lying.


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.