All this article proves is that there is such a thing as bad scholarship.

Example: "In our studies, we recorded interviews set up in such a way that we knew when a person was lying. Afterward, we replayed the videotapes over and over in slow motion to identify the expressions and behaviors that distinguish lying from truth-telling."

This completely invalidates the study. What should have been done was catalog facial tics and THEN see if there is any statistical significance between specific tics and lying.

And where are the peer-reviewed, double-blind studies?

I'll note, too, that the Professor Emeritus misstates the facts regarding the screening of the terrorists on 9/11.

And one more fact: I'm a trained actor. I guarantee you that, if I don't want to, I won't display any facial tics when I'm lying. All a terrorist needs is a copy of Uta Hagen's "Respect for Acting," and a couple of weeks with an acting coach.

What garbage. Ekman is yet another alarmist in the "anything for security" camp. Sure, let's hassle everyone who is having a bad day -- we're certain to stop the terrorists that way.

Too bad the Ekman's studies didn't include an Introduction to the Constitution class.