WDB ON DEP HAS TCASII RA FOR SMT SAME ALT.

Narrative

ON CLBOUT OF LAX ON THE LOOP 9 DEP WE WERE ADVISED OF A VFR TARGET; AN SMT AT 16500 FT NWBOUND. WE DID NOT SEE THE TARGET VISUALLY; BUT HAD HIM ON THE TCASII. EVEN THOUGH WE TOLD THE CTLR WE DID NOT HAVE THE TFC HE CLRED US TO CLB THROUGH THAT ALT (16500 FT). WE NEVER SAW THE SMT UNTIL THE TCASII ISSUED AN RA TO CLB AT LEAST 2000 FPM. WE SAW THE SMT OFF OUR L SIDE AT 1 MI AS WE WERE PASSING THROUGH 17000 FT. I LAY BLAME FOR THIS ON 2 INDIVIDUALS: MYSELF FOR NOT BEING SUSPICIOUS AND TRUSTING THE CTLR; AND THE CTLR HIMSELF. THE CTLR OBVIOUSLY HAD SOME KNOWLEDGE OF THE SMT; AS HE CALLED THE TFC TO US BY TYPE; NOT JUST INDICATED ALT. HE WAS WATCHING THE SMT ON RADAR; AND THEREFORE; MUST HAVE BEEN AWARE OF HOW CLOSE OUR FLT PATHS WOULD COME. IN MY OPINION HE SHOULD HAVE NOT ISSUED A CLB CLRNC ABOVE 16000 FT OR SHOULD HAVE VECTORED US AROUND THE TARGET; PARTICULARLY AFTER HEARING THAT WE DID NOT HAVE VISUAL CONTACT WITH THE TFC. I REALIZE THAT ATC IS ONLY RESPONSIBLE FOR SEPARATING IFR TFC; BUT; IN THE INTEREST OF SAFETY FOR ALL CONCERNED; I WOULD LIKE TO THINK THAT THE CTLR WOULD PLAY IT SAFE; EVEN THOUGH THE SMT WAS VFR. I WON'T MAKE THE MISTAKE OF ASSUMING THAT AGAIN. WE COULD EASILY HAVE HAD A MIDAIR COLLISION AND BOTH AIRPLANES HAD BEEN OPERATING PERFECTLY LEGALLY. I ALSO QUESTION THE JUDGEMENT OF THE SMT PLT FOR OPERATING VFR ACROSS THE DEP PATH OF LAX. ALTHOUGH NO HARM WAS DONE AND NO RULES WERE VIOLATED; I DON'T BELIEVE THIS WAS VERY SAFE.