I've noticed in the entertainment media (you know, movies, TV, books, internet chat rooms and bullertin boards) that up until about 10 years ago CIA was The Man behind every nefarious plot. Recently, that role has been replaced by NSA. People now ascribe all manner of absurd behavior and capability to NSA (controlling imagery satellites, conducting wetworks, etc.) The public has only gained a basic knowledge of the mission and even the existence of NSA since the Gulf War, and most people still only know (at best) that it's another of the alphabet soup of intelligence agencies. I guess this makes it a prime candidate for writers looking for a mysterious, capable FEDGOV agency to use as a villain. I would note that with the movie "Enemy of the State" it was clear that the bad guys were a rogue group, and when DIRNSA found out something was fishy within his agency he wanted to kick ass and take names. Displacedim

Favourable TV program: 24

"I would note that with the movie "Enemy of the State" it was clear that the bad guys were a rogue group, and when DIRNSA found out something was fishy within his agency he wanted to kick ass and take names." Sounds like a fellow former NSAer made the same observation. The believability of this popcorn flick was quickly blown away. The only real element that made factual sense was what displacedjim said about DIRNSA, (an Admiral if I remember?) An NSA secret special ops team? I think the director of the CIA would have salivated over this type of force. I have looked up the movie reviews of ENEMY OF THE STATE and it is amusing. Roger Ebert is of course a staunch liberal and always colors his reviews of even innocuous films with a jab at Republicans, the right, Bush, etc. He commented that he thought there was too much surveilance of our lives as it was. Roger doesn't realize that it is the FBI that would have power to snoop on him, not NSA. A film reviewer made the most amusing comment. displacekjim was correct when he said that knowledge of the NSA only increased in the last ten years. The film reviewer said "The movie is about the NSA, the National Security Administration." As a film reviewer he showed no higher understanding. While in college in Albany in 1976, I went to a ski resort in Vermont to learn about running a ski vacation trip. A woman gave a lecture about the success she had in Washington organizing a couple of bus loads of NSA employees. I asked her if she would branch out next and work to get a bus load of CIA employees. She gave me a dirty look and said "I don't work with THEM." I turned away and thought, "honey, and you don't work with a full deck."

I have complete confidence that the current director would act at least like the admiral in the movie. (Here's where I play "Two Degrees of Michael Hayden," and pathetically name drop a little bit.) I've never met LtGen (that's LG to you Army types) Hayden, but I've gotten to know his daughter quite well over the last six or eight years. She's a fellow AFRes intel officer, and if the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, then I'd estimate that politically-speaking Gen Hayden could probably pass for a libertarian, and definitely would immediately react to possible abuse of authority and illegality. I know he's highly regarded within the IC and on Capitol Hill, and has been invited to stay on for a pretty-much unprecedented fifth year as DIRNSA. It's my impression he has made some major policy, process, etc. improvements at the Fort since he got there. Hey, I think I could sympathize with the girl from Vermont: see my vote in the "What's the best intel agency" thread. Displacedjim