10 December 2007

Protecting America



I was only mildly surprised to see an OpEd in the paper this morning from the Director of National Intelligence. Back in the day, the Spooks did not normally avail themselves of the editorial page of the New York Times, which appears to have been in a death struggle with the Government about how we are supposed to conduct a war with rules against an enemy who has none.

The DNI does not seem to be taking the heat for the destruction of the interrogation tapes at CIA; that falls to General Mike Hayden. The General is a cautious man, and whatever the truth of the matter might be, I am confident he would not have authorized the destruction of evidence. I can see why someone would have wanted to have the documented questioning go away, though.

I had a vigorous debate about the matter when I was still in a position to advocate loosening the rules that hamstrung our intelligence services in their means of interrogation. One of my operational pals made a convincing case about the bad guys he had to let go because he followed the rules. He wanted more aggressive techniques to be permitted in the questioning of hostages. I agreed with him then and agree with him now. I hope he is permitted to do what is necessary, wherever he is.

Still, I am in agreement with Senator McCain that torture is bad. It is a function of how strange this all is that the techniques being employed are the same ones that we use on our own people in training. If you have ever been water-boarded, and I am happy if you have not, you would realize that the technique was transferred from the POW training syllabus that most of us had to go through in preparation for operational assignments.

There is a stark difference, of course, in that we fully expected the training to end at some point. It still involved a fair amount of unpleasantness. Being unpleasant to students is acceptable in certain contexts, those being in the case of students who may be captured and tortured. Being unpleasant to murderers almost has an imperative, though I freely acknowledge that if you have got your hands on someone who is actually innocent, it is most unfortunate and highly regrettable.

Someone should apologize.

I had reason to contemplate that a few weeks ago. I was attempting to enter a government building at the request of people who worked inside it. As I removed by watch, wallet, belt and shoes in an attempt to demonstrate my harmlessness, one of the guards decided my look of exasperation reflected an attitude that did not fully support his mission. He might have been a Marine at one time; and no long ago. I know the breed well from long experience.

There was a tense moment as the guard explained my place in the universe, which I considered to be remarkably similar to that of a resident of al Anbar Province, where my host seemed to have learned some of his manners.

Seething on the bus that delivers guests to the impressive new building, I thought I might be permitted a little attitude, since I had been invited to the building as part of a periodic test to protect the Homeland. All of us in the business have to go through the indignity periodically, which involves being strapped to a metal chair and questioned closely on a variety of issues. In this case, absent any evidence or complaint, I was closely questioned on my association with foreign intelligence services and the sabotage of government computers.

On the face of it, the two issues were absurd; yet the evidence of my respiration and pulse was ambivalent, and made them suspicious.

Don't get me wrong: I don't expect three decades of honorable service to count for much, and I enjoy being strapped to machines as much as the next guy. I did explain that I have been smoking, both in the service of my government and for personal pleasure, for most of my life. It is not illegal, though it makes it a bit difficult to breath in shallow regular manner. The arthritis that knots my limbs may contribute to a tendency to fidget a bit after a few hours. It is entirely possible, I said, that my rage against the attorneys who are hounding me could have a transference to authority figures who strap you to metal frames and tell you not to breathe.

I don't know. I am not one of the practitioners of the art of voodoo, which is another tool in the comprehensive fight against terror and spies. I do know that all my answers were taped and transcribed, and that no one has destroyed them. In fact, they helpfully remind you that they may be referred to the Grand Jury, should they deem it appropriate.

All of that made me support the DNI's OpEd piece this morning. As you may recall, Director McConnell gained a significant triumph in the passing of the Protect America Act last August.

The provisions of the bill gave the Intelligence Services the speed and agility necessary to detect terrorist and other evolving national security threats without the necessity of obtaining a court order for each individual communication stream.

The matter is quite complex, since technology is evolving far more swiftly than the old laws, which were passed before cell phones and e-mail and packet-switched transmission technology. There is no bit of information that can be truly characterized as being “outside” the United States, which was the old tripwire for the necessity of a court order. The Internet tunnels travel everywhere.

I support these measures implicitly. None of them involve strapping people to chairs, at least at the outset. The problem with the Bill is that it contained a sunset provision of only six months. That means that in order to continue to monitor foreign intelligence targets after the first of February the law must be extended.

The DNI needs a law that does not require a court order for surveillance “directed at a foreign intelligence target that he reasonably believes to be outside the United States, regardless of where the communications are found.” The other two parts are establishing a fast-track court authorization process that moves at the same speed as the communications stream, and legal immunity for those carriers whose lines carry the information. Without the last, it is highly unlikely that there will be any cooperation with the private sector.

I am a complete supporter of the DNI's request. The political debate is another one of those little passion plays that is irrelevant to the way the world really works these days. Information is everywhere, and the Spooks need to be able to go and get it.

After all, if someone is to be strapped to a chair and accused of treason, there should be a reason, shouldn't there? Honestly, it is enough to set your heart racing.

Copyright 2007 Vic Socotra
www.vicsocotra.com


Close Window