Re: CIA & FBI, a marriage made in ___?

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

> 
> 
> 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.  I liken this battle to the desire of each branch of the
armed services to have their own air wing.  When you need close air
support, it doesn't have the navy to work for first.  In this case, the 
move is an attempt to head off legislation that would be much more 
restrictive on 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.

The FBI, understaffed in counterintelligence anyhow, also has a distinctly
different philosophy and approach to CI.  Law enforcement seeks to apply 
interdiction.  Find the criminal, catch the criminal in the act, 
imprison the criminal.  Historical example: The Walker Case.  The FBI 
blew it in a big way when they snagged the documents at the drop spot.  
As a result, they never followed the handler connection back.  

The CIA prefers observation.  Find the criminal, watch the criminal, walk the
cat backwards (catch the handler, perhaps some others, depending on the degree
of cell compartmentalization).  Disinformation through the exposed spy is also a 
powerful tool.  It not only disrupts intelligence activities, but erodes 
trust in legitimate information.

In intelligence the feeling usually is that observation is best.  The 
goal being to learn about the enemy.  In law enforcement the feeling is 
that the crime must be stopped.  The goal being to enforce "justice." 
Note that this represents a simplification of the bumps around the edges.

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

> 
> 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.

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 
advocates.  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.

Ames was exposed for quite a long time.  His public capture and arrest 
complete with media fanfare were as politically timed as the rest of the 
rhetoric out there.  I've spoken in private with at least one list reader 
on this matter in the last week or so, it's really not a new concept.  It 
does surprise me that it has become as political as it has.  I have long 
maintained that these uses of intelligence betray a basic ignorance of 
intelligence application and intelligence agencies in general.

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

> Ties to political aspects of crypto ought to be pretty damn 
> obvious.

Yes, I'm tired of the issue being framed as a crime problem that needs 
political attention through law enforcement when in actuality it is a 
question of regulation and domestic policy.


> Brad  bdolan@well.sf.ca.us
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> William J. Clinton, on MTV:

[X=Y Y=X]

Other speaker:

[X=Y Y=X]

> 
>   The statements were made by Adolf Hitler.  He was explaining the
>   moral philosopy of Nazism [National Socialism].
> 
>   _The Ominous Parallels: The End of Freedom in America_, Leonard 
>   Peikoff, Stein & Day, NY, 1982. ISBN 0-8128-2850-X
> 
> 
> 

-uni- (Dark)