Asymmetrical Information

I never understood this hire in the first place. I would classify myself as a conservative and I thought Poindexter was the wrong person for the job. Heck, I think he's the wrong person for ANY government job.

IMHO, he wants to hand the government way too much power, with the hope that the people who wield it will never abuse it. That's the impression I got from his interpretation of the Patriot Act (a terrible piece of legislation).

I agree, he's a liability. But it pains me to see his exit connected to the terror futures kerfuffle. It reinforces the smug view on the left that the idea was prima facie invalid. Which of course is B.S.

Good goddam riddance to the un-admirable Admiral - if nothing else, the fiasco over the DARPA/PAM project ought to have highlighted his unsuitability for such a high-profile job. One would thing that a long-time Intelligence hack like Poindexter would have at least learned the lesson by now that if one is going to try to implement a new intel innovation like a PAM, one should either keep it completely under wraps, or else at least, if it has to be public, be able to identify and deal with (or at the very least, spin)any potential objections that might arise.
DARPA, in this case, completely botched both scenarios - which should effectively kill any such PAM-like plan for the foreseeable future.
IMHO, I still don't think the PAM model for garnering anti-terrorist intelligence is anything like a good idea - but I would at least have wanted it to be subject to some sort of reasonable public debate on its merits and potential efficacy - rather than the knee-jerk defensiveness/antagonism that the plan engendered as presented.

The article stated, "He became a central figure in the Iran-contra scandal in which Reagan administration officials diverted cash from secret sales of arms to Iran to bankroll Nicaraguan guerrillas at a time when such aid was forbidden by Congress."

Another attempt to rewrite history. Such aid was NOT forbidden by Congress; what Congress did was to state that no appropriated funds could be used to support the Nicaraguan freedom fighters. Since the money from selling the arms to Iran was not appropriated money, there was nothing illegal about funneling it to support the Nicaraguan freedom fighters, which had been receiving appropriated funding for years before Congress changed their minds in midstream.

That's why there were no charges relating to selling arms to Iran or providing non-appropriated funds to the rebels--these activities weren't illegal. They might have been a political blunder, but they weren't illegal.

Between Iran-Contra and TIA, I can't say I'm sad to see Poindexter go. I'm opposed to PAM, too, but

(a) it's a good idea, it just shouldn't be paid for by the public sector, and

(b) it's a minor offense. Poindexter's head is rolling for offending Congress once too often.

I have blogged on this topic, check the link.

I think that Poindexter should have been gone long ago, but to do it over this is just another example of my dictum that when the government occasionally does the right thing, it's almost always for the wrong reason.

If there was nothing illegal about Iran-Contra, why did everyone run in all different directions to get away? Why did conservative heroes North and Poindexter commit felonies by lying about it? Why did Bush I pardon Weinberger, among others?

Are you seriously claiming that the President can just sell government assets when he feels like it and use the money any way he wants because it's not "appropriated?"

Poindexter being fired for this, is really really bad. No matter how you feel or think about PAM, it was a novel and creative way of attacking a problem. My first thought was how ridiculous and idiotic it would be. But then, after reading about the Hollywood Stock Market and the IEM, I came around to seeing this as a good idea. At least worth a shot.

Firing Poindexter over this is just going to stifle thinking over at DARPA and other government agencies.

The three obvious objections to the idea have been pointed out repeatedly. First, there's no particular reason to think that would-be investors are likely to be any more accurate about this than they would be as a source for new scientific information. Second, (as Ms. McArdle points out) is that it raises the alarming possibility that terrorists might actually try to raise funds by gaming the system. Third, since this market will be public information, any terrorists can simply consult it to find out what the government thinks they're likely to attack, and then go attack something else. Any predictive tool that automatically modifies what it's trying to predict is useless (one might call this the Political Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle).

As for Iran-Contra: for something that was supposedly totally legitimate, it sure roused a lot of people to commit felonious perjuries.

Bernard,

Because it was a political blunder. And I don't recall North committing any felonies by "lying" about it. The first time North testified before Congress, he was not placed under oath and committed no crime. The second time he testified, he testified under a grant of immunity. Despite the grant of immunity, the special prosecutor tried to nail him anyways. Note that North was convicted of only three things, and all the convictions were overthrown on appeal as violating the grant of immunity. One of those things, as I recall, was being charged and convicted of having used some of the money to build a security fence around his property after he was threatened by Abu Nidal.

I did not say that the President can just sell government assets when he feels like it and use the money any way he wants because it's not "appropriated." What I said was that doing so did not violate the law that Congress passed regarding supporting the rebels in Nicaragua. Which it didn't. But doing an end-run around the intent of Congress is never a good idea unless it's been thoroughly politically vetted ahead of time--which it wasn't.

And I thought that Reagen proved himeslf to be a class act when, as the Iran-Contra thing unfolded, he instructed the Executive Branch that he wanted them to follow the spirit in addition to the letter of any law passed by Congress.

Bruce: The point is not to that any particular investor would be more accurate, but the accumulated wisdom of the investment group would be greater than any individual.

Lets say you have one piece of info that makes you want to buy one of the securities. It could be something you read in the paper, it could be something you overheard at the lunch counter, it could be a gut feeling. You may not even be able to articulate it. By buying the security, you are tossing that admittly fuzzy piece of information into the mix, in a usable form. Couple that with all the other tidbits that all the other investors have, and that gives you a better picture than you would have otherwise. It may be complete nonsense, but then again, it may not be. And is better than nothing.

Second: Gaming the system. Think about this for a moment. The way to game the system is to buy the security when it is low, and have it pay off. But the act of buying the security alerts those who are trying to stop you from collecting.

Or to put it another way, you can either attempt terrorists acts, or you can try and game the system. Doing one severly hampers the other.

[And if the terrorists are dumb enough to try, we not only use that information to bring them down, but get their money as well. Preventing further actions.]

Third: there are a couple problems with this objection. First this is not instead of regular or even improved intelligence gathering methods, but in addition to. Just because the publically available market says one thing, our intel assets that are not publically available may say something else. And the terrorist have as little access to secret intel as the rest of us.

Second, there is still a question of why the market thinks a particular scenario is unlikely. Is it because of peculiar secruity arraignments, there is a mole in the terrorist cell, or what?

And third, unless your terrorist cell has a multiple number of plans and targets, and can switch to any one at any time, you have all the problems involved in planning one such operation by itself, multipled. With all the security problems you have for each plan, compounded. YOu still have to devote resources, time, intelligence gathering, planning time, etc. for each, train all your terrorist cell mates for each operation, and pick one at the last minute, not knowing why the investment community thinks that is a low probability target. (The investment community itself may not know why, nor be able to explain why it thinks the way it does. See the first objection above)

Comments are Closed.