[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: House National Security committee guts SAFE, worse than nobill



At 5:31 PM -0700 9/9/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:

>>    "Giving the secretary of defense a veto is inconsistent with the
>> president's executive order and inconsistent with the policies of four
>> prior administrations," Reinsch said. "The administration thinks all
>> relevent agencies should have a seat at the table and none should have a
>> veto."
>
>In other words, all the relevant agencies together should have a veto.
>Hardly a surprise. Reinsch is merely quibbling over details. (In fact, the
>amendment wouldn't even give Defense a solo veto.)

I am not suggesting that we should relax because the Administration is not
completely satisfied with this provision. They scored a hit against SAFE,
just like we won one at the Foreign Relations Committee.  Border skirmishes
in the larger, ongoing war.

None the less, this is much bigger than a quibble over details, IMHO.
There are important policy implications of this language.  And politically,
it is extremely significant that Reinsch would be critical at all,
considering that the Committee voted to substantially undercut the bill
(one of Reinsch's top priorities).  Perhaps you missed this nuance.

Best,

Jonah



  * Value Your Privacy? The Government Doesn't.  Say 'No' to Key Escrow! *
            Adopt Your Legislator -  http://www.crypto.com/adopt

--
Jonah Seiger, Communications Director                  (v) +1.202.637.9800
Center for Democracy and Technology                 pager: +1.202.859.2151
<[email protected]>

http://www.cdt.org                                      PGP Key via finger
http://www.cdt.org/homes/jseiger/