Us neither. But ...
"Congress delayed launch of the new office last October. Critics cited
its potential to expand the role of military assets in domestic law
enforcement, to turn new or as-yet-undeveloped technologies against
Americans without adequate public debate, and to divert the existing
civilian and scientific focus of some satellite work to security
uses."
So, you might want to familiarize yourselves with it, because it's
your friendly and ever efficient Homeland Security Department's latest
maneuver to spy on you, your privacy "rights" notwithstanding.
-------------------------------
"Administration Set to Use New Spy Program in U.S."
"Congressional Critics Want More Assurances of Legality"
By Spencer S. Hsu
Wa****ngton Post Staff Writer
Saturday, April 12, 2008; A03
The Bush administration said yesterday that it plans to start using
the nation's most advanced spy technology for domestic purposes soon,
rebuffing challenges by House Democrats over the idea's legal
authority.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said his department will
activate his department's new domestic satellite surveillance office
in stages, starting as soon as possible with traditional scientific
and homeland security activities -- such as tracking hurricane damage,
monitoring climate change and creating terrain maps.
Sophisticated overhead sensor data will be used for law enforcement
once privacy and civil rights concerns are resolved, he said. The
department has previously said the program will not intercept
communications.
"There is no basis to suggest that this process is in any way
insufficient to protect the privacy and civil liberties of Americans,"
Chertoff wrote to Reps. Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.) and Jane Harman
(D-Calif.), chairmen of the House Homeland Security Committee and its
intelligence subcommittee, respectively, in letters released
yesterday.
"I think we've fully addressed anybody's concerns," Chertoff added in
remarks last week to bloggers. "I think the way is now clear to stand
it up and go warm on it."
His statements marked a fresh determination to operate the
department's new National Applications Office as part of its
counterterrorism efforts. The administration in May 2007 gave DHS
authority to coordinate requests for satellite imagery, radar,
electronic-signal information, chemical detection and other monitoring
capabilities that have been used for decades within U.S. borders for
mapping and disaster response.
But Congress delayed launch of the new office last October. Critics
cited its potential to expand the role of military assets in domestic
law enforcement, to turn new or as-yet-undeveloped technologies
against Americans without adequate public debate, and to divert the
existing civilian and scientific focus of some satellite work to
security uses.
Democrats say Chertoff has not spelled out what federal laws govern
the NAO, whose funding and size are classified. Congress barred
Homeland Security from funding the office until its investigators
could review the office's operating procedures and safeguards. The
department submitted answers on Thursday, but some lawmakers promptly
said the response was inadequate.
"I have had a firsthand experience with the trust-me theory of law
from this administration," said Harman, citing the 2005 disclosure of
the National Security Agency's domestic spying program, which included
warrantless eavesdropping on calls and e-mails between people in the
United States and overseas. "I won't make the same mistake. . . . I
want to see the legal underpinnings for the whole program."
Thompson called DHS's release Thursday of the office's procedures and
a civil liberties impact *****sment "a good start." But, he said, "We
still don't know whether the NAO will pass constitutional muster since
no legal framework has been provided."
DHS officials said the demands are unwarranted. "The legal framework
that governs the National Applications Office . . . is reflected in
the Constitution, the U.S. Code and all other U.S. laws," said DHS
spokeswoman Laura Keehner. She said its operations will be subject to
"robust," structured legal scrutiny by multiple agencies.
http://www.wa****ngtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/11/AR2008041103655.html
|
