🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan8.065938.6024@qualcomm.com> karn@servo.qualcomm.com (Phil Karn) writes:

>
>That's the theory. In practice, the line of accountability of the
>bureaucrats making the decisions is awfully long and thin.  NSA calls
>the shots on crypto export decisions. Their obsession with secrecy is
>legion, and they need not explain the reasons behind a decision to
>anyone. The phrase "national security" is the most you'll get. Let's
>face it -- that's the de-facto "root password" to the protections of
>the Constitution.
>
>This may nominally be a democracy, but doesn't this type of secret
>policymaking remind you just a little of the former USSR?  Remember
>that the standard excuse for denying Soviet citizens the right to
>emigrate was that they carry "state secrets" from their service in the
>military. Pretty soon I expect Mr. Sternlight to argue that anyone who
>knows how to write a cipher should need an exit visa to leave the US.

First, Phil makes a personal reference that's part of the unfair
attempt by some in this discussion to demonize me and my views.
I stated very clearly that I would recoil from such things, and
now Phil is putting words in my mouth that I'd argue for them.
Shame, Phil!

Now to the substance. There's a very difficult issue in an area
where not only is a decision about whether something is classified
is involved, but also where the issues in the decision are themselves
classified. In the intelligence community this is sometimes referred
to as a "sources and methods" issue.

Obviously it's difficult to "explain their decision to anyone" in
cases of this kind. But it is false to assert that "they need not
explain the reasons behind a decision to anyone."

First, there are congressional oversight committees, and believe me
they take their job very seriously. A complaint to the right committee
will get a decision reviewed by them. It will be done in secret, since
the issues are classified, and one may hear only the result, but it
will be done.

Second, there are standing oversight committees reporting to the
President. A former boss of mine who in a previous life was an expert
in NSA policy issues in the Pentagon, was made a member of the NSA
oversight board when he went back to civilian life (he was a political
appointee while in the Pentagon, and part of civilian oversight--see
below).  He watched over just such issues as those we're discussing,
closely.

Third, there is a vigorous "Inspector General" program in the
intelligence agencies, and enough bureaucratic in-fighting and
difference of opinion about just such issues as those we're discussing
that one can expect some informal regulatory process here.

Fourth, the intelligence and military communities are intensely
integrated with civilian oversight--not only the heads of agencies,
but also many key policy makers and administrators. Most are
"political appointees" responsible to the President in power. In
particular, the head of the CIA is a civilian Presidential appointee,
and the NSA is controlled both by the head of the CIA (through the
Intelligence Community mechanism) by a civilian policy maker at
Assistant Secretary level in the Pentagon, and by the Defense
Secretary. All are Presidential appointees, confirmed by the Senate
after careful hearings.

It's not at all monolithic, and attempts to demonize the NSA or the
Government, just because one doesn't understand what's going on are
extremely wrong-headed.

Having said that, I also agree that strong public scrutiny of current
and proposed laws and regulations is essential to the democratic
process, as is vigorous defense of civil rights. My own rule of thumb
here is Mark Twain's old aphorism: "Trust everyone and always cut the
cards."

The U.S. is not the former USSR, and such comparisions are odious.

Now to my story. This was told to me by my former boss, who was there.

When Bernie Schriever was head of the Strategic Air Command, he was
briefed on our nuclear war plans. The briefing was in a several-story
high room, with enormous charts rolled down from the ceiling. During
the briefing, he was shown targets, weapons assignments, damage
assessments, etc. He asked: "What if the winds shift?"

"Well, if that happens, x thousand Bulgarians, y thousand Hungarians,
(etc.) will die." (Note--the quotes aren't exact.)

Schriever replied "Any plan that causes the deaths of thousands of
civilians in countries we aren't at war with is no plan at all."  and
sent them back to work.

A second story:

J. Edgar Hoover is generally demonized, especially by liberals. But a
reading of the Congressional hearings about Nixon's COINTELPRO plan to
use Gestapo-like intelligence tactics for domestic surveillance shows
that the reason the "Houston Plan" wasn't adopted was that Hoover
resisted it tooth and nail, and on Constitutional grounds. Whatever
else he may have done, for that Hoover saved the Constitution and with
respect to that particular issue he was a hero in my book. NIxon's
people tried to use every device of the bureaucratic despot to thwart
him. Despite threats, blandishments, offers of personal rewards, etc.
Hoover put his body and that of the Bureau on the line on that one.

(Note: those who really disliked Hoover have argued that it was a
simple "turf" issue, but the record shows clearly that Hoover's
concerns were Constitutional, not "turf." At one point the White House
wanted the FBI to run the thing rather than the proposed Houston
group, but Hoover rejected that out of hand.)

My point is that the Government isn't monolithic, and that there are
people in the decision-making apparatus that are concerned about the
same issues as you and I, and in similar ways. Demonizing people
and institutions doesn't add any light to these issues. Rational
discussion does.

David
-- 
David Sternlight
RIPEM Public Key on server  --  Consider it an envelope for your e-mail