The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Solid Verification

3.22.06 @ 12:01AM

DEFENDING DEFENSE
Re: David Holman's Nothing But the Truth:

On December 15, 2005, The American Spectator published an article entitled "Nothing But the Truth" by David Holman. The article criticizes the Department of Defense for not adopting Computer Voice Stress Analysis (CVSA) technology to determine if someone, such as a terrorist, is telling the truth, and states that failing to do so denies U.S. troops the very best equipment. However, Mr. Holman failed to identify the Department's fundamental need for validating equipment. To be successful in obtaining usable intelligence, the Department must go beyond collection of intelligence -- to assessing whether that information is truthful or deceptive.

Merely getting people to talk is not sufficient. The imperative is to discern the accuracy of the information that forms the basis for intelligence. That information must be assessed for accuracy and truthfulness, and there is no scientific evidence that CVSA can adequately distinguish between truthfulness and deceptive information.

A study on voice stress analysis was conducted at the University of Florida, and we await the opportunity to review the results of that study. However, until scientific testing adequately proves the reliability and accuracy of CVSA, the Department of Defense would be irresponsible to condone the acquisition of such an instrument, or endorse a technology that could place its personnel or the reliability of information at risk.

The Department of Defense monitors closely the research, development, and evaluation efforts of academic institutions and other federal departments and agencies involved in assessing a variety of technologies for truth verification. Technological advances enhance the future of intelligence verification within the Department, but these advances -- like CVSA -- must be backed by solid scientific validation.
-- Robert W. Rogalski
Acting Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Counterintelligence and Security)

David Holman replies:
I'm grateful and flattered that Deputy Under Secretary Rogalski read the article and took the time to respond, even more than two months later.

The failure to represent the Department's case in the article is the Department's, which did not respond to ample and repeated opportunities to do so.

Still, my article thoroughly examined the concerns about CVSA's scientific validity. Contrary to Mr. Rogalski's claim, I never claimed that CVSA is "the very best equipment." Rather, I wrote that the Department is "denying our very best the equipment they want to pursue the War on Terror." The bureaucracy has halted use of the CVSA by the guys on the ground, which Rogalski does not deny, and his response reflects that top-down approach.

No one -- not I nor anyone else interviewed for my article -- disputes the need for accurate intelligence and responsible, accurate tools to obtain it. However, if that's the gold standard, then the Department should subject its other truth verification devices to it. That includes the polygraph. Rogalski ignores the large section of the article detailing the polygraph's questionable reliability. Both devices are unproven. Why our troops don't have access to the device many prefer, including apparently the Special Operations Command, is a question only Rogalski and the Department of Defense can answer.

IT'S SPANISH TO ME
Re: Shawn Macomber's Doing the Hispanic Hustle:

When Bill Richardson told the New Hampshire gathering to "be proud to be Latino but know you are also part of the American mainstream," did he mention that the Latino achievers who are part of the American mainstream, yes even in New Mexico, became that way because they are proficient in English? Richardson need only look at his beloved mainstream media where Hispanics are hired to balance the diversity tally but are asked to perform in English.
-- Earl Wright
Clovis, California

The corpulent chameleon Richardson to be taken seriously? Surely you jest. He reeks of insincerity and deviousness. Shawn, could you not divine this when he leaned into your space and uttered "Shawn" before each faux manly sentiment he shared with you? Such could never be nominated for the highest office in the land. Oh, you want to remind me of Clinton and Kerry -- and Carter, and Johnson and.... Well,l he could never be elected. Could he?
-- James Wheatley

The amazing thing about Bill Richardson's Hispanic shuffle is that he is the equivalent of a carpetbagger. He was blessed with that "patron" (overweight) look but was not raised in a Hispanic environment. He has mastered the hustle from the outside. This is the equivalent of a Yankee coming into the south and convincing southerners that he is one of them. Make no mistake about him though he is a politician in a one party state (occasionally there is a Republican governor but the legislature is very Democrat) and he is thoroughly corrupt. Our state government has much in common with a banana republic. Our state ranks in the high forties with respect to all good things (education, income, etc.) and towards the top in all bad things (crime, illegitimacy, etc.). He doesn't play his religion up much in public but is one of those nauseating liberal Catholics that consults his priest about minimum wage laws but doesn't seem to have the slightest problem with tens of millions of aborted babies. Social justice means lots of state money flowing into his friend's pockets. He might give a nice non-partisan talk but can extract revenge on his Republican foes like he has done recently. It is too bad that all Shawn Macomber could do was report on the poppycock at a Mexican restaurant and not even look into what the guy is really about. We expect this kind of lazy reporting from the New York Times but it hurts in The American Spectator.
-- Clifton Briner
New Mexico

BAD CASE OF THE SMARTS
Re: Doug Powers's Belzer's Morons:

For a guy who reads 20 newspapers a day, Belzer sure doesn't have a very good command of the English language.
-- Dwight L. Ludwig
Martinsburg, West Virginia

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Education, Nancy Pelosi, Bill Clinton, Mainstream Media, Television, Social Security, Religion, Islam, Environment, Books, Hollywood, Constitution, Law, Military, Iraq, Iran, NATO, North Korea, Socialism