DHS Polygraphing Employees
Looking for leakers.
To add to the list of items that sound like some other authoritarian country, but is instead the one we live in, CBS reports that DHS administering lie detector tests to employees in effort to find leakers.
The Department of Homeland Security is administering polygraph tests to its personnel to determine who may be leaking information to the media about its ongoing immigration raids, an agency spokesperson confirmed to CBS News Saturday.
On Feb. 18, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said DHS would start polygraphing employees in order to crack down on these leaks.
In a video posted to social media Friday, Noem wrote that the department had “identified two leakers of information here at the Department of Homeland Security who have been telling individuals about our operations and putting law enforcement lives in jeopardy. We plan to prosecute these two individuals and hold them accountable for what they’ve done.”
The polygraph tests have been taking place for about three weeks, the DHS spokesperson told CBS News. It’s unclear how many employees have undergone them.
I know that polygraphs are used for some security-related issues (although what the exact scope is, I could not say). I also know that are reasons to be skeptical of their efficacy (see this piece from the American Psychological Association).
The goal here is to use fear to keep people in line. That is not a healthy way to run an agency, but it also speaks to the general mindset of the current administration.
A side note: this struck me from the story as well:
In late January, Noem told CBS News that ICE’s filming and publicizing of its immigration raids was an “accountability measure.”
“It’s not a spectacle,” Noem said. “This is our nation’s law enforcement — judicial process. The scales of justice are equally applied to everybody. We want transparency on this. I believe that this is an accountability measure.”
Gotta admit that this looks like spectacle to me.
I am all for transparency, but this has all the appearance of theater, with Noem in the spotlight.
It’s probably just a coincidence that her make up is perfect and hair artfully arranged. It’s also probably a coincidence that the early raids are mostly in blue states.
Steve
There are plenty of photos of Putin in a naval uniform, in a hunter’s outfit, bare-chested on a horse, etc. It’s all part of the fascist theater intended to convey the idea that the ability to lead is determined by personal toughness and strength.
This all part of the same playbook. (Obviously, Trump himself is too decrepit to pull it off, but his cult members can still use AI to make him look like a boxer or give him prison tats.)
In reality, the idea that real, actual leaders should be physically tough is, of course, utterly absurd. Sane societies don’t select leaders based on their ability to do grunt work. And sane voters would recognize the utter absurdity.
Having said that, I think Noem should personally shoot an illegal immigrant. Live on TV. It would raise her profile tremendously!
Someone needs to beat her ass and shave her head.
@Beth: I’d give her a break and just do a basic tar and feather.
There is a reason that you’re required to have long hair pulled back–it’s so it doesn’t get caught in equipment.
This is very, very clearly Kabuki theater, and it’s all very irritating.
@Jen: Or used as a handle by an assailant.
In my jujitsu career (not the Gracie type), I worked out with many women at all skill levels, including some that had 50 years on the mat. Many of them were from Central California, many were religious, I assume some were pretty conservative. Some had longer hair, but they put it in ponytails for the workout. Duh. And I never once saw anyone wear lipstick on the mat.
@Lucysfootball:
No. See, I look at her and know at a fundamental level that she is exactly like me in one way: her hair is a fundamental part of her identity, both as a woman and a human. It goes beyond vanity or style. It is integral to her as a person.
To forcibly shave her head is to destroy both and deny her agency and humanity. That’s why Federal prisons are shaving trans women’s heads.
If someone attempted that on me there is no amount of restraint that could hold me or stop me from killing the people that did that to me. It is exactly the same with her.
ETA: I would shave her then stuff it in her mouth.
All,
I understand the anger. I do. But I have never been a fan of talking about violence to others. In this current moment, it seems especially problematic.
First, I think it underscuts our moral authority to be calling for doing to others what the regime is willing to do.
Second, it creates a possible line of attack on the site.
Please keep this is in mind.
@Beth: I thought when you tar and feather someone they lose their hair in the process. As someone who barely has any remaining hair it never occurred to me how a person’s hair is a part of their identity. I did not know that they shave the heads of trans oersons in federal prisons but unfortunately it does not surprise me. Another disgusting rule in the time of Trump.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Not to blame you, but it seems you’re basically admitting that the First Amendment can no longer be relied upon. None of the above comments can be reasonably construed as to contain a true threat.
@drj: At a minimum, I have long thought that having comments that are seen to be threatening or violent in their imagery could be used as a means of criticizing the site’s hosts and as a way of casting general aspertions on the site. At a minimum, it can be used as a means of attacking the seriousness of the site and its authors.
I saw this firsthand when a faculty member who hosted a discussion board about a non-political topic was attacked (in the form of letters to the university) for some highly questionable comments on their site. The comments were racist in nature and the faculty member was tarred with their content. Note that no actions were taken against the faculty member, but it is an example in which a site’s host was associated with the contents of a post.
Further, I simply don’t like them and find them to be counter-productive. And I don’t want to be associated with it. This was true well before Trump ever came down the escalator. I have noted my distaste for such in the past.
And yes, the current political climate adds a new level to it all.
Frankly, a polygraph seems like weak tea compared to how she treats her pets.
@drj: Let me add something I was also thinking about: if James find himselg having to defend the site in some professional setting, I would prefer he have to deal with substance rather than someone being able to site certain kinds of comments.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Understood and I apologize. Feel free to delete my comments as necessary. Feel free to scold me as necessary. I am try and failing to not give in to the unbearable anger I feel.
I ask this question honestly: what good is moral authority? It seems that presumes that you’re dealing with other people that believe in and are willing to deal with objective reality. Which we aren’t.
Is there any moral authority when I say that I suffered for years and that my transition saved me? In the face of people who tell me that my suffering is moral and that I am, not only amoral, but actual evil?
Is there any moral authority in my and my family’s current suffering? I ask as I cry in a mall for the 3rd time today?
I’m asking you honestly in your capacity as a teacher and a wise elder cause I’m lost.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Thanks for the response.
I must note, though, that the comments were made in response to someone in authority (the Secretary of Homeland Security no less) who is trying to raise her profile (under the guise of transparency) by reveling in violence against others.
(And even if the violence is legitimate, the reveling is, frankly, disgusting.)
Considering this, some rhetorical pushback centered around the sentiment of just deserts seems… not excessive.
I guess what I’m saying is that I find it disconcerting that there already appears some adjusting to the new political reality going on.
Of course, I am – contrary to you and James – not exposed to a potentially vengeful administration or hostile social environment, which makes a whole lot (perhaps too much) of a difference.
But still.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Responding to this comment separately. I agree with you, but I suspect in the current situation, the simple act of my participation here creates the conditions for punishment for you and Dr. Joyner. Maybe even the participation of anyone whose comments could reasonably read as coming from a woman.
I agree with @drj: that our agreement that the 1st Amendment is dead. How do we deal with that reality? I mean you are correct that the violence in my imagery probably not productive in good times and worse now, but it should be protected political speech.
Again, I’m not in conflict with you, I just don’t know how we deal with this reality.
@Beth: I respect your position as regards identity. I agree that head-shaving in prison (now I understand your earlier comment!) of trans women is highly offensive.
AND, I doubt that Kristi Noem places quite so much weight on her hair as you do. Most cis women have weight there, but also have a practical streak. My wife had to shave her head to get her brain tumor treated (it worked!) so she did. (The treatments worked, and the hair grew back!)
Noem’s hair is her political identity. We are seeing political performance, which is not quite the same as gender performance. (Maybe it’s political gender performance?)
This is an adopted look, an assumed look. It is what a woman needs to look like to get ahead under a Trump regime. Which is why you would like to destroy it, I imagine.
To me, it’s ridiculous. None of the rough, tough, frontier, country women I knew growing up would make such a choice. My mother grew up around lumber camps in the PNW. She did lots of hiking and camping and hunting. She took a fair amount of care with her appearance too, and was a regular customer of LL Bean. But she would never dress herself like that. It’s silly.
@Steven L. Taylor:
I will admit that I have always struggled with finding the theoretical point at which violence is justified, if at all. It seems more relevant now by the day.
It’s what I expect from someone who shoots puppies.
But, honestly? Trump is all about televised performance. This is completely in line with his 1936 Berlin approach to domestic politics – fear and force.
@Beth:
I don’t have time to respond more fully right now, but your presence here is welcome, and please never think otherwise.
I have thoughts on moral authority and other related issues I will save for a full post.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Thank you. The support I’m receiving from everyone here is one of the things that is keeping me upright currently. I do feel like my contributions and welcome even if my style is, uh, intense. That being said, the creeping worry that my presence, on its own, may contribute to harm is growing.
I look forward to your thoughts on this and moral authority. You are almost certainly thinking more clearly than I am. I do suspect that both of us are going to have to create new tools to deal with this.
Whether anyone calls for it here or not, violence is a very likely outcome in the current political climate.
If congress won’t act as a check on the monarch, and the courts either won’t or can’t (if their orders and judgments are ignored), then what’s left?
@Beth: Every time I go through a crisis, I’m fine in the moment, and then an anxious mess as soon as the immediate threat is gone for a moment. I expect you’re going through something similar, and you’ve just been to busy packing up and moving your family around the world to feel all your very justified anger and rage.
As you sit crying in the mall for the fourth time today, or maybe the first time tomorrow, take a moment and remind yourself that you (and your partner, let’s not forget her efforts) got your family to relative safety. Then go on with your crying, because you need to let that shit out.
That said, as long as I can remember, this blog has generally frowned upon extended violent fantasies about political figures. Maybe cut down on the specifics, for our hosts, but I would miss you if you were gone. And I have missed you when you were gone for a bit earlier.
(75% sure I got your partner’s gender and designation as partner correct. I should keep a spreadsheet. If your partner is a he and/or a wife, please correct as needed)
@Steven L. Taylor:
I really wonder what process you think there would be where James is asked to defend this site rather than simply being fired once the site pops onto the radar of someone who cares. This administration is not big on process, and what process there is seems to be going towards a foregone conclusion.
I really want to be wrong about that.
I’m almost in agreement on this — ICE raids should be filmed. I just don’t think ICE should be doing the filming. Really, all police actions should be filmed by anyone nearby. We need transparency.
I expect that Ms. Noem, puppy-killer and deliberate cruelty enthusiast, was not exactly thinking along those lines though. I hope her hair gets tangled in something and it hurts.
@Beth: Your suffering is real to me. I see you.
When Trump was re-elected, I resolved that the best thing I could do in response was to take care of people like you, though you are mostly able to take care of yourself.
But, it seems you need to hear this:
Your suffering is real.
Your transition is real.
You transitioned because what is in your heart and mind is the thought “I am a woman”, and you wished to live without so much conflict between your heart and mind on one hand, and your social identity on the other.
All those people who revile you are acting out their own internal conflicts, which you have brought them face to face with.
Their anger is not because of you, but because they are not at peace with themselves, and you seem a convenient target of blame.
Crying is a completely reasonable response to the situation you find yourself in, by the way.
@Gustopher: What you said has been my thought, too.(Additionally, I’ve embraced the possibility that he might be replaced just for the lulz/show of power/elephant.). This administration doesn’t seem to need reasons for doing stuff. Balance of terror and all that.
ETA: And I really want to be wrong, too. (But I don’t think we are.)
We should all reject violence.
Hey, do lie detectors work? Aren’t they worthless?
Using pseudoscience to dodge management failure.