Al Haig and Secure Communictions

[Black Unicorn <unicorn@access.digex.net>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
 
 
About two weeks ago while making a point about the 
absurdity of taking government on its word, I mentioned an 
incident involving then Secretary of State Al Haig.
Specifically the point was in reply to Mr. Sternlight's 
assertion that because a public relations official for the 
NSA had made statements regarding the Data Encryption 
Escrow plan's harmless nature and the equally harmless and 
benign character of the NSA's paternal hand, they were 
unquestionably authentic and complete.
Among other points, I indicated that there was significant 
reason to doubt bald assertions made by government 
officials, especially in a public relations capacity.  One 
of the examples I used relied on the events following the 
attempted assassination of President Reagan, (who's name I 
then spelled incorrectly).
Specifically I noted that Secretary of State Haig appeared 
before the press and announced (in some form or another) 
that he was in charge.  The implication in my statement was 
that Secretary Haig was not in charge at all, and that 
relying on government to operate by its own rules, even 
with the scrutiny of the press is silly.
An irate Haig supporter, who also defended the President's 
name (by correcting my spelling error anyhow) insisted that 
this event was a big fabrication by the press and that 
indeed Secretary Haig was in authority in some way or 
another.  He insisted the press had blown the issue out of 
proportion.
I was forced out of town for some time, and was unable to 
reply immediately.  I bring up the point now to clarify my 
information, and to tie in some interesting concerns 
regarding secure communications and operations in a 
Emergency.
 
Secretary of State Al Haig was not next in line for either 
succession stream, and his asserting so in the national 
media was a gross error.
 
The relevant authorities are the Department of Defense 
Directive 5100.30 (1971) and the Constitution of the United 
States.
The first sixteen successors in the Presidential line of 
succession are:
 
1. The Vice President
2. Speaker of the House of Representatives
3. President pro tempore of the Senate
4. Secretary of State
5. Secretary of the Treasury
6. Secretary of Defense
7. The Attorney General
8. Secretary of the Interior
9. Secretary of Agriculture
10. Secretary of Commerce
11. Secretary of Labor
12. Secretary of Health and Human Services
13. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
14. Secretary of Transportation
15. Secretary of Energy
16. Secretary of Education.
 
The national command authority line kicks in when the 
President and his/her successors are dead or cannot be 
located and immediate U.S. military decisions must be made:
 
1. Secretary of Defense
2. Deputy Secretary of Defense
3. Secretary of the Army
4. Secretary of the Navy
5. Secretary of the Air Force
6. Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
7. Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering
A plethora of the Assistant Secretaries of Defense and 
General Council to the Defense Department in order of their 
lengths of service.
 
etc.
 
When President Reagan was injured, and the Vice President 
(George Bush at the time) was out of town, the successor to 
the Presidency was the Speaker of the House, Tip O'Neill.  
The Secretary of State was two more rungs down the ladder.  
The Secretary of State appears nowhere in the command 
authority side of succession.  Casper Weinberger was the 
then Secretary of Defense and next in line there.  Al 
Haig's source of sovereignty?  Control of the national 
media?  Perhaps that's a touch conspiracy oriented, but how 
does the proper authority convince the citizenry that he or 
she should be followed when another authority figure is 
effectively seizing the reigns?  Herein lies the stuff of 
constitutional crisis.
It is the responsibility of the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency to keep track of the Presidency and the 
line of succession.  The question becomes, if a figure 
claims authority how is this verified, and enforced?
 
Former FEMA director Giuffrida:
"One of the things we discovered is there was no 
authentication system.... if [someone] got on the horn and 
said, 'I'm the successor,' and somebody said 'prove it,' 
[no one could]."
 
Of course this was some time ago, but how much things have 
changed is a real question.
 
It seems to me that the Unites States has never recognized 
the potential problems that national crises may cause.  I 
cite a particularly interesting tale that might be amusing 
if it were not so alarming.
 
On the presidential emergency evacuation procedures from 
National Security Advisor Brzenzinski's Memoirs:
 
I called in the person responsible for evacuating the 
President in the event of a crisis.  I obtained a detailed 
account on how long it actually would take to evacuate the 
President by helicopter.... I ordered him to run a 
simulated evacuation right now, turning on my stopwatch.  
The poor fellow's eyes...practically popped: He looked so 
surprised.  He said, "Right now?"  And I said "Yes, right 
now."  He reached for the phone and could hardly speak 
coherently when he demanded that the helicopter immediately 
come for a drill.  I took one of the secretaries along to 
simulate the First Lady and we proceeded to the South Lawn 
to wait for the helicopter to arrive.  It took roughly two 
and a half times longer to arrive as it was supposed to.  
We then flew to a special site from where another 
evacuation procedure would be followed.  To make a long 
story short, the whole thing took roughly twice as long as 
it should have.  Moreover, on returning we found that the 
drill somehow did not take into account the protective 
services and we were almost shot down.
 
There have been significant changes in technology no doubt 
since the Carter Administration.  For one thing fiber 
optics seem to present some resistance to EMP effects that 
before threatened normal lines of communication, but how 
have authentication methods changed?  It seems to me that 
there are great potentials for advance in authority 
authentication with new technologies not limited to and 
newer than public key cryptography.  On the other hand it 
seems the United States culture of vulnerability, justified 
by theories of Mutually Assured Destruction or budgeting 
concerns, is so strong that such advances would never take 
hold in a meaningful way.  Can you see a reporter in the 
famed President Haig press conference asking:
"Excuse me Secretary Haig, may we examine your FEMA signed 
authority key?"
 
- -uni- (Dark)
 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.3
 
iQCVAgUBLaI9HxibHbaiMfO5AQEBZgP/fZaGM/WG4sgJuqmmn/uBgLIoUzn9bBe1
CDaOUYzCvyssFWp23qIqXZMgKVorxQXIObbKORFSfG2Nj+n3gcyKF2oRUtrbqmsT
oam6h+wABTpawNt2Kc3P0MwwX9QyHK/afPNpuztwCntdvCOmXd3YHybQ5dLHAk5d
ku9cQlHjMBo=
=Qz+l
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----