Summary

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has ordered lie detector tests for DHS staff to identify leaks that allegedly foiled immigration raids, including a failed Colorado operation targeting Venezuelan gang members.

The directive, leaked to Bloomberg, requires polygraph questions about unauthorized communications with media and nonprofits. Despite polygraphs’ unreliability, DHS insists they are necessary for national security.

The crackdown follows frustration from Trump’s border czar Tom Homan over compromised raids and aligns with broader MAGA-era efforts to control government communication.

      • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        Honestly ya may not be far off, humans even profligates like those in Trumps orbit have a generally good enough ability to detect when folks are pissed at them. When said pissed folks have access to weapons, are more intelligent than you, and probably think what you are saying is beyond stupid then well wearing a comfort vest is probably the only thing keeping her from booking it out of the room.

      • Atelopus-zeteki@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        It’s a thing about the nervous systems of old world primates, like us, we’re always making those assessments.

      • Telorand@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        Which is why she’s ordered the lie detectors. They only know what they see in the movies, and lie detectors are one of their favorite devices.

    • athairmor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      Funniest thing about that is they only help in an all-out fire fight to protect your vital bits except the head which would have a helmet. She’s not going into any situation nearly so dangerous and if someone wanted to take her out, specifically, there’s plenty of options.

      She might as well have a mall ninja sword strapped to her back.

    • onecarmel@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      She’s a very serious person with very serious things going on! /s

      She’s worried someone will put her down like she did her dog

      • Ledericas@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        and her 3 horses. she has a natural fear of gravel pits, or any dugout pits.

    • kata1yst@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      You ever seen the dictator warlords constantly wearing miliary gear with too much polish and a thousand made up medals?

      That’s why.

  • blakenong@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    Gucci just needs to come out with bullet proof vests. They won’t work for shit, but all the republican women will buy one.

  • tal@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    “This isn’t a game,” Homan raged to the Associated Press. “We know that TDA is dangerous. Everybody can agree to that, but when they get a heads-up that we are coming, it’s only a matter of time before our officers are ambushed. Their job is dangerous enough. So we are going to address this very seriously.”

    I don’t think that leaking this is a good idea, but come on. If gangs find out in advance that they’re about to be raided, are they going to disappear or seriously voluntarily going to stay and have a shootout with DHS?

    Like, this can certainly mess up investigations, but I have a pretty hard time believing that it’s going to get DHS agents killed.

  • mox@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago
    1. Is thedailybeast.com considered a reputable news source?
    2. To snuff out is to kill; usually murder. Did the author mean sniff out?
    • CuddlyCassowary@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      I think it’s meant to “snuff out” as in “kill” the leaks, not necessarily the perpetrators. Like, we’re gonna do this to end the leaks. The wording is somewhat awkward and questionable, but not necessarily incorrect. Snuff out is used to refer to extinguishing candles, so it’s not unheard of to use it in contexts other than ending human lives.

      • mox@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        I see your line of thinking, but let’s also remember that polygraphs wouldn’t end leaks even if they really were lie detectors. The most they could do in that fictional scenario would be to reveal the leaks; to sniff them out. To snuff them out would require some additional, separate action.

        Also snuff out applies to candles only because the snuff is literally part of a candle’s wick. The phrase is not being used literally here, which leaves us with the common non-literal meaning: to murder.

        I still think the most charitable interpretation is that author confused it with sniff out, and failed to consider the grisly meaning of what they wrote.

        • CuddlyCassowary@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 years ago

          If you want to go the linguistic history route, “snuff” literally meant “to sniff at in order to examine” starting in 1810, so it’s technically (the best kind of?) correct to use it in this context, although still awkward in terms of modern colloquialisms.

          • mox@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            I’m going as far back as the 1400s, and your 1810 usage doesn’t match any common meaning of “snuff out”, so I don’t think it really applies here. But thanks for the interesting etymological diversion. :)

            In any case, polygraphs still cannot put an end to leaks, so I stand by my original interpretation.

  • LupusBlackfur@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    It’s the dogs… Specifically puppies that aren’t “acting right”… They’re “leaking”…

    Good thing she has experience dealing with bad dogs.

    🤦‍♀️🫏🤡🖕🖕

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    That is the single most ridiculous picture I’ve seen all week.

    And that’s saying something.

    • Hobbes_Dent@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      “What do you mean we don’t have cameras on every angle?”

      *America is saved again by surveillance, tune in next week*

  • Chefdano3@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    It should be pretty common knowledge that lie detector tests are completely bogus and can’t be trusted. They’re not admissible in court cases. Polygraph tests are proven to be made up pseudoscience.

    They might as well try using crystal pendulum tests to dowse out the national security threats.

    • peoplebeproblems@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      I want to point out - the results are inadmissible, but anything you say IS admissable.

      A polygraph is an interrogation technique. And to this day I still don’t know why they try to use it with so many things. Like security clearance. It doesn’t really give them any insight into anything about you, other than if you like to run your mouth