1994-04-28 - Re. FBI & CIA

Header Data

From: Brad Dolan <bdolan@well.sf.ca.us>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 8201a96bd714dad894e6ac9f9101a7a35852ef5535e3ce96c085403b342d45dc
Message ID: <199404280347.UAA19470@well.sf.ca.us>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1994-04-28 03:47:28 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 27 Apr 94 20:47:28 PDT

Raw message

From: Brad Dolan <bdolan@well.sf.ca.us>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 94 20:47:28 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re. FBI & CIA
Message-ID: <199404280347.UAA19470@well.sf.ca.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

>From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@access.digex.net>
>Subject: Re: CIA & FBI, a marriage made in ___?
>To: 71431.2564@CompuServe.COM (Bradley W. Dolan)
>Date: Wed, 27 Apr 1994 22:06:25 -0400 (ADT)
>> Does it concern anybody besides me that the CIA [with a bunch of 
>> underemployed manpower] is jumping into bed with the FBI [whose
>> spokesman recently testified to Congress that they didn't have 
>> enough manpower to enforce the Crime Bill on us]?
>Yes it bothers me, but not for the reasons that you think.
>First, be careful about characterizing the change as the CIA
>jumping in bed with the FBI.  What is really happening is that
>the FBI is taking over some of the counterintelligence functions
>of the CIA.  [...]
>Believe me, the CIA is more upset about it than 
>you are.  They are hardly "jumping into bed" with anyone.  Bent over a 
>chair is more like it.

O.K., so it's rape.  They're still in bed together.  And I don't 
think I'm going to like the progeny.

>The usurpation of CIA's CI functions bothers me because of the doctrinal 
>distinction, not because it empowers the FBI.

Both aspects bother me.  Further empowerment of the FBI bothers me more.

>> Does it make anybody nervous besides me that this is occurring 
>> at the same time that the 2ond and 4th amendments are being 
>> dispensed with?  While the Clipper chip and digital telephony
>> bill are being foisted on us?
>Yes it makes me nervous, but not for the reasons you think.
>See below.
>> Is there a trend here?
>Yes.  I'm not sure if my version is close to yours, however.

Opposite side of the same coin, I think.  You worry (correctly) that
a politicized intelligence/law enforcement establishment won't be
very good at intelligence/law enforcement.  I worry that it may
become good at something else.

>The trend is to use the intelligence and federal law enforcement agencies 
>for domestic politics.  The NSA to promote the economic regulation of the 
>crypto market.  The FBI to further the executive's domestic survell.
>technology agenda, and put out the crime fire at home.  The CIA to
>demonstrate, via a parade of horrors, how bad the problem is, and be the fall
>guy for the FBI. [...]

>This is a perversion.  I discussed this before on the list and in usenet.
>Using the NSA as a public relations tool to the degree you see today is 
>an idea that only the intelli-clueless Clinton would think of.  
>Intelligence and law enforcement are not the President's personal program 

>It detracts from real business and it destroys the 
>credibility of the agencies in the eyes of the public.  


>This makes it hard for real business to be addressed.


>I have the greatest respect for the office of the Presidency, however.

If I keep an image of Washington or Jefferson firmly fixed in mind,
I can maintain just a shred of respect.

>-uni- (Dark)