From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@access.digex.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 94 12:18:50 PDT
To: perobich@ingr.com
Subject: Re: AT&T, Clipper, & Saudi Arabia
In-Reply-To: <199404281615.AA11058@poboy.b17c.ingr.com>
Message-ID: <199404281918.AA07020@access3.digex.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


> 
> > > I have great respect for you, Steve, but in this case I must humbly
> > > disagree with you. The US government does have a very long record of
> > > promoting US products for foreign sales, but it is certainly rare for
> > > the President himself to get involved so publically.
> 
> > No it is not.  This is the second time Clinton has lobbied the Saudi's in
> > favor of US companies

[Examples]

> 
> "Is too." 
> "Is not."
> 
> In this case, "rare" is accurate when applied with respect to the long
> history of US government involvement, not to this particular
> president; as you point out, this is the second time that Clinton has
> inserted himself into the loop. It wouldn't be too surprising to see
> him do it again.
> 
> However, this sort of intervention *is* rare by past standards. Do you
> recall any non-FMS contracts where Presidents Bush, Reagan, Carter, or Ford
> went to bat so overtly for US products?

In general I dislike the amount of hands on management in this 
administration.

See below.

> -Paul
> 
> 

->
Dear AT&T:
 
If you'll roll over for us on Clipper, we will suitably incentivize you.
 
/s/ The Clinton Administration
 
I suppose most of us would consider a $4B contract a "suitable
incentive." While there's probably no direct evidence of a quid pro
quo, it strikes me as a bit odd that the President is personally
intervening in a purely commercial deal.
<-



It's not odd while the commercial deal impacts domestic, or foreign 
policy programs, and while Clinton can appropriate agencies for his 
personal PR programs.  If you look at the trend of Clinton leadership 
back to Little Rock, you can see a trend of misuse, or appropriation of 
officials for his personal or program use.  Be it a law firm, or the NSA 
or AT&T it doesn't seem that this is anything new.

It is, however, disturbing.

Look at the goals of the administration with respect to technology.


1>  Restrict strong crypto

2>  Empower law enforcement with high technology.

3>  Regulate the "information superhighway"


The stepping stones to get to these points have included:


A>  Restricting export of strong crypto.

B>  Restricting or encouraging weak crypto Domestically (Clipper)

C>  Weaken the will of large telecommunications entities to resist with 
	string incentives and the threat of Regulation (DigiTel '94)

D>  Make compliance so difficult that it's easier to yield the torch to a 
	government agency.  (NIST perhaps?)


Now consider the methods:


1>  Active frustration of the market.  (Bought up AT&T's non clipper 
	phones and destroyed most of them).

2>  The use of NSA, the creation of NIST to promote domestic policy and 
	accomplish the stepping stones.

3>  The use and empowerment of the FBI at the expense of the CIA under the
	guise of the crime problem to highlight the "problem" and circumvent
	the autonomy of intelligence agencies.


The methodology is dangerous.

If the President can not only use the law enforcement and intelligence
agencies to further goals only remotely connected to law enforcement and
intelligence, and tie the hands of private corporations before pushing them
off the plank, what happens when the goals get even more centralist?

At this point it hardly matters that the United States is a "capitalist 
private sector economy" because the President can interfere when and 
where he likes in the private sector with relative ease.  How did he get 
here?  50 Years of accretion of power by the State.

Will the day come when AT&T, which backbones the majority of communication,
including borrowing books from thousands of miles away and sending faxes from
the beach, is merely a tool for domestic policy?  

Hell, it's a tool for domestic policy today.  What happens when the 
PRIVATE largess of phone service (which by then will be much more 
important than it is today) is interrupted because you haven't paid that 
traffic ticket?  Impossible?  States are already taking driver's licenses 
away for reasons not remotely associated with driving or owning a car.  
(See that old Wired, can't remember which issue).  Is the use of private 
companies with heavy reliance on government as tools that far off?


In 1952 Justice Jackson commented,  "The tools belong to the man who can 
use them."  The quote from Napoleon was a cold reference to the inability 
of the court to empower the Congress unless the Congress would take hold 
of the reigns, or in his words, "We may say that the power to legislate 
for emergencies belongs in the hands of Congress, but only if Congress 
itself can prevent power from slipping through its fingers."
_Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer_, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) (Jackson, J.).

That was in 1952.  The underlying suggestion was that a more powerful 
President, a President who held the Congress in his hands and dazzled 
the people with charisma might well wield tools that were outside the 
conception of the day. [It explains much to say that Truman was in Office] 
Jackson was wrong.

Today we have a President whose every move is questioned.  Who is 
embattled in controversy and conspiracy theories.  Who is seen as a 
proponent of big government and branded a "one termer."  A President who 
cannot grab hold, cannot quite steady himself in the rocking boat, cannot 
find a safe haven from the press, the people or the legislature, even in 
his own party.  Still, here is a President who wields the tools of 
private industry and agencies because he can use them.  I ask, what will 
a loved President accomplish with the same tools?

-uni- (Dark)