FBI should be polygraph-tested

Is it just me, or does the federal government get more arrogant by the year?

A report by CBS News last week demonstrates well the government's worsening "us versus them" mentality.

It seems that FBI agents are ticked off because Director Louis Freeh and Attorney General John Ashcroft are considering administering widespread -- and frequent -- polygraph examinations to agents.

Had this been done all along, security advocates have said, guys like Robert Hanssen -- the 25-year FBI vet who has allegedly spied for Russia for 15 of those years until he was caught last month -- could have been discovered much sooner.

Now, however, Freeh is having second thoughts because FBI agents are whining about having to take the tests. They say polygraphs aren't always accurate, which is true. They say they're afraid that a couple of false positives could sack the careers of some otherwise honest agents -- a legitimate concern.

Agents do spend many years preparing for an FBI career. They spend many more learning their craft after getting a job with the bureau. They are, for the most part, highly skilled law-enforcement people and, in most instances, deserve praise and respect for what they do.

What irks me, however, is this: Some of the same agents who complain about polygraphs also have no problem using modern technology to spy on you and me -- even though we are innocent of any wrongdoing and could have lives and careers ruined if we're falsely accused, or worse, if we're killed during a storm trooper raid because the FBI came to the wrong house. It happens, but no one is ever held responsible -- at least not in the way ordinary folks are held responsible if somebody murders an agent.

So what's the difference? "Us versus them."

Besides, these complaints about polygraph testing are especially disingenuous because the FBI uses them to test suspects. They can't be admitted in court, mind you, but the Feds use them anyway. How galling.

I also don't have much sympathy for a federal law enforcement agency that complains hypocritically about polygraph testing, then touts the "extreme benefits" of domestic electronic spying embodied in the "Carnivore" technology, which provides the bureau with the capability to conduct unlimited and widespread Internet monitoring.

Whenever Americans object to this kind of scrutiny, we're told, "If you're not doing anything wrong, then what's your problem?"

Yeah, well, ditto.

If FBI agents don't have anything to hide, then what's their problem with taking a lie detector test to help determine that?

The thing is, this wouldn't even be an issue, more than likely, if so much spying hadn't been discovered over the past several years in a number of federal agencies, like the FBI and the State Department, during the Clinton administration. Endorsing or creating lapses in national security was the standard operating procedure in those days, it seems.

We can't entirely blame Bill Clinton for Robert Hanssen; he's been there spying for Russia through four administrations: Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush. But we can blame the Clinton administration for making it much easier for foreign governments -- China comes to mind -- to spy on us and then steal some of our most valuable national security secrets to date.

So, in the context of losing the designs for every nuclear warhead we have built, I'd say the FBI's complaints about taking polygraph tests ring a little hollow and insignificant.

The fact is, with so much at risk, the scrutiny ought to be tougher on those charged with protecting our country, our secrets, our government and us. The rules of conduct shouldn't conform to the lowest common denominators in our society; they should set the standard for the highest.

I understand that polygraph testing might produce some false positives and cause some angst for some agents. Besides polygraphs, there ought to be an additional process to help scrutinize and screen those who may -- for any number of reasons -- "test positive."

But considering our past security nightmares, polygraph testing is simply an "inconvenience" agents ought to be required to deal with. If they are "offended" by the testing, then they don't have the right mindset to be an FBI agent because agents should support any methods that help enhance security.

Furthermore, I say if every aspect of my life is "fair game" for U.S. law enforcement agencies to "monitor," then you better believe I support measures designed to "monitor the monitors."

In a free, liberty-minded and democratic society, citizens cannot let rulers live by a different set of rules.

Otherwise, "we, the people" has no meaning and will not be respected by those who have power.