The never-ending scandals of the Clinton years have so wearied the American people that it’s hard to stir up any sort of indignation, these days, no matter how serious the crime.

But one betrayal of public trust that continues to inspire righteous wrath is treason.

Longtime FBI agent Robert Philip Hanssen may face the death penalty, if convicted on charges that he passed counter-intelligence secrets to the Russians in exchange for cash and diamonds. It is alleged that two American double-agents were betrayed to the KGB as a result of Hanssen’s 15-year career on the Russian payroll. They were later recalled to Moscow and, reportedly, executed.

What makes the story so tragic is that much of the damage to American security interests could have been avoided and the lives of our agents might have been spared, if the FBI had taken basic security precautions to screen the activities of its agents.

Only now, after the fact, are there calls for issuing polygraph tests to senior bureau staffers. New recruits have faced mandatory lie-detector testing for a number of years but the old-timers were grandfathered out by superiors confident that these loyal untouchables truly were "untouched."

Please don’t think I’m advocating across-the-board lie detector testing for Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Public. We already have too much government intrusion into our lives. But those trusted with preserving our liberties and being paid accordingly should be held to a higher standard.

Still, there are considerable, collateral side benefits to be gained by requiring all intelligence service officers to undergo such testing.

Let’s think back to the Ruby Ridge standoff, when FBI agents shot 14-year-old Sammy Weaver in the back and blew his mother’s head off as she held her baby at the front door of their Idaho cabin. Polygraph testing could have determined guilt by discovering who issued those senseless shoot on sight orders and why.

If agents knew they would face a polygraph test during their debriefing, would they ever have bothered issuing such faulty rules of engagement?

Consider Waco. We have it on good authority that former Green Beret Bo Gritz and ex-lawman Jack McLamb were twice given permission by the FBI to parachute into the Branch Davidian compound in an effort to talk some of those inside into surrendering or sending out children and non-combatants.

High winds prevented the parachute drop on one occasion and before they could make a second attempt, the final conflagration occurred.

Speaking of which, we’ve also learned that the CS gas pumped into the Branch Davidian compound for six hours straight on the morning of the inferno was supposed to have been inserted over a 48-hour period. One can imagine the logical method would have been using it in spurts, a half-hour, then a call for surrender, an hour, than a chance for further talks. But no, we’ve been told the highly flammable gas was inserted until it was gone.

And then, "kaboom."

Once again, who rescinded the Bo Gritz negotiation orders? Who planned the CS gas attack? What were the real motives of those behind the scenes? What can we learn from the use of the polygraph.

We can be fairly certain that the Oklahoma City bombing might never have occurred and another 168 people might be alive with us today, had the Waco and Ruby Ridge fiascoes never taken place.

Use of the polygraph can be a mighty weapon for truth. But only if we ask the right people. And only when we ask the right questions.

4.9¢ long distance from WebToday: Online sign-up takes 30 seconds