CIA Gatekeeper or over thirty years John F. Sullivan plied his trade as a senior polygraph examiner for the CIA. Using lie detectors, guile and hard-earned respect, Sullivan belonged to a special division sometimes described as the agency’s gatekeepers, preventing foreign agents, unsuitable applicants and employees guilty of misconduct penetrating or harming the world’s biggest intelligence service. Before that, Sullivan spent five years in the US Army, learning Russian and German and being trained as an agent handler. During what many would describe as a lifetime with the CIA, Sullivan conducted over 5,000 polygraph tests. Regarded as one of the world’s most experienced polygraph test examiners, Sullivan believes the polygraph test is more “art” than science. His career in the ‘Company’ was not without controversy, and his forthright comments about polygraph testing often led to heated debate with colleagues and superiors. After working in numerous ‘theatres’ in 40 countries, Sullivan retired in 1999 to the outskirts of Washington DC.
F
In 2002 he wrote ‘Of Spies and Lies: A CIA Lie Detector Remembers Vietnam’. His work for the CIA in this particular arena is eye-opening and may well have gone unreported, had he chose not to remember, reflect and report. And then came a feature prepared by the National Science Academy that effectively criticised the polygraph test. This was his motivation to write ‘Gatekeeper: Memoirs of a CIA Polygraph Examiner’ - a fascinating, yet equally controversial insight into this most secretive of tradecrafts. Sullivan’s book has courted controversy, indeed, efforts were made by the CIA to stop publication. Eventually officials relented. Some describe Langley’s action as “heavy handed”, but there are those within the intelligence community who believe such books are best left in the minds of a writer and discussed behind closed doors. Gatekeeper is an honest attempt to describe the work of a polygraph examiner, but of course, prepared by a CIA officer, and focusing on “delicate” issues, it was bound to raise an eyebrow or two in Langley. Sullivan provides case examples and conflict within the polygraph division, but when the dust settles, the CIA may actually benefit from the author’s subtle, yet no-nonsense overview of a lifetime playing ‘cat and mouse’ with thousands of subjects. If nothing else, Gatekeeper shows polygraph does work, if used in conjunction with other tactics. Eye Spy Intelligence Magazine caught up with John, a private man who has not always seen eye-to-eye with colleagues at the CIA. His views are forthright and unedited...
interview
Eye Spy: How did you become a CIA polygraph examiner?
Eye Spy: How long did your polygraph training take?
JS: I was in graduate school at Michigan State University training as a linguist. At the time, the CIA’s polygraph division was looking for a linguist. As the agency was recruiting in Michigan State I decided to apply. My application was successfully received in June 1968.
JS: Back in the 1960s, a training course took about eight weeks. Today, a CIA polygraph examiner trains for at least nine months. Polygraph training today is far superior - unquestionably. Eye Spy: When did the CIA start polygraphing?
John F. Sullivan 52
E Y E
S P Y
I S S U E
4 9,
2 0 0 7
E Y E
S P Y
I S S U E
4 9,
2 0 0 7
JS: The CIA ran its first test in 1948 ship between you and the subject and continues to do so today. is definitely a factor. Also, the examiner has a certain amount of Eye Spy: Some would say knowledge about the subject. If you polygraph is a science. What’s are talking to a suspected foreign your view on this? agent, the more you know about that person, the chance of JS: I don’t think Polygraph is a acquiring accurate data increases. science - it’s an art, though some The questions are critical in an of my colleagues would disagree. interrogation or debriefing and that Testing is a combination of many can only come with experience. things, but experience is crucial. Certainly you use a machine, Eye Spy: Are all polygraph tests the checking the heart rate, respirasame? tion... you take various measurements, but there are so many JS: Frankly tests are quite unique factors involved that can’t be and dependent on who you are quantified or scientifically measspeaking to. If I was interviewing a ured. For example, many people defector, for example, I would take don’t understand that the relationa different approach to that if
53