Hacker News Reader

Comment by morgante | Hacker News Reader

I'd like to be outraged, but it does seem like he deserves to serve time.

He's not being prosecuted for providing information generally on how to cheat a polygraph. He committed a crime when he willingly and knowingly aided actual criminals. (Ex. a federal agent with drug cartel ties.)

That's absolutely a crime. Just like it's legal to sell thallium, but it's certainly not legal to sell it to someone who tells me they intend to kill with it.

And it seems he didn't maintain plausible deniability.

(Bring on the downvotes.)

View on HN

>I'd like to be outraged, but it does seem like he deserves to serve time.

"Deserves"? Do you assign this moral priority only to the current snapshot of American law, or do you apply it to American law in general, or do you apply it to the laws of whatever country a person resides in?

>(Bring on the downvotes.)

I wouldn't have if you hadn't said that.

> "Deserves"? Do you assign this moral priority only to the current snapshot of American law, or do you apply it to American law in general, or do you apply it to the laws of whatever country a person resides in?

I actually think this moral judgement is irrespective of the legal environment. He knowingly, though not directly, aided a ruthless criminal organization. To me, that's immoral regardless of what country you reside in.

So the prosecutor alleges. The problem I have with this is that it doesn't make sense. Why would he tell him to refer to his brother as a "distant relative"? This doesn't seem like remotely sound advice for fooling a polygraph. Better advice would be "lie and pretend you don't know anyone who is into anything like that, and then use countermeasures on the control questions so that they don't know you're lying".

I mean, what scenario could they have been talking about where that advice would make the slightest bit of sense? Had he mentioned his brother before, and Dixon was advising him to backtrack ("My mistake, I thought he was my brother, but he's actually my fourth cousin twice removed")? Did CBP already independently know about him, and that they were related but somehow not know they were brothers?

I get that this was a sting, so the scenario in question was fictitious, but I cannot fathom a story the agent could have told Dixon where that would have been good advice. The only vaguely plausible explanation I can think of is that Dixon was trying to subtly trick the guy into getting caught by volunteering the connection unnecessarily.

> aided actual criminals

Could you be more specific in what crimes he aided in? Falsifying polygraph test results isn't a crime, since the test results are inadmissible in court cases.

> Falsifying polygraph test results isn't a crime, since the test results are inadmissible in court cases. True. But it is an obstruction of justice, and it seems pretty clear that some people were soliciting his services to cover up non-polygraph crimes.

For example, providing false identification to members of the Zetas drug cartel is definitely a crime (and, considering their penchant for bloodshed, a pretty despicable one). It's also whether the "convicted sex offenders" used his training to avoid capture for additional crimes (which would make him something of an accomplice).

Just not clear how we could defend a man who knowingly trained people doing some pretty nefarious things.

> Falsifying polygraph test results isn't a crime

Yes it is: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1505

>any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act

IANAL but that appears only to deal with the stuff dealt with here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1312 . That only applies to antitrust investigations.

I think you're right! My mistake, thank you for correcting me.

So maybe that's not relevant statute in this case? What else could "obstruction of an agency proceeding" refer to?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com