[FPSPACE] Dept. Homeland Secruity Satellite program going forward

[Peter Pesavento]

>From Rawstory

 

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/DHS_satellite_spy_program_going_forward_1002.h
tml

 

 

DHS satellite spy program going forward despite objections 


Nick Juliano
Published: Thursday October 2, 2008


'Ridiculous' to think program doesn't violate Posse Comitatus, ACLU lobbyist
tells Raw


The Department of Homeland Security has been given the money it needs to
begin turning international spy satellites within the country's borders,
despite lingering fears about the program's lack of focus and the potential
for it to infringe upon Americans' civil liberties. 

After more than a year of delay, Congress quietly authorized DHS to begin
sharing data gathered by military satellites with civilian and law
enforcement agencies. A $634 billion spending bill signed into law earlier
this week provides funds for DHS to establish the satellite surveillance
program, known as the National Applications Office, without addressing the
myriad concerns about NAO privacy and civil liberties protections that had
been delaying its implementation. 

Supporters of the program claim, according to the
<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122282336428992785.html>  Wall Street
Journal, that its scope will be limited to "emergency response and
scientific needs," but civil liberties advocates and some members of
Congress fear the door has been open for the highly classified satellite
surveillance program to shift into high gear.

"I'm kinda shocked it got through," Tim Sparapani, an American Civil
Liberties Union lobbyist, told Raw Story, saying the spending bill language
authorizing the NAO is not "strong enough to forbid what we would want to
see forbidden."

Essentially, the bill only requires the Homeland Security Secretary to
assure lawmakers that NAO programs comply with exisiting laws. Congress also
has required the DHS Inspector General to provide quarterly classified
reports on how much information has been collected by the domestic satellite
surveillance, although the bill required those reports be made to the House
and Senate Appropriations Committees, not the Homeland Security Committees
that are traditionally in charge of DHS oversight. 

House Homeland Security Committee members recommended
<http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Domestic_spy_satellite_program_on_hold_1001.h
tml>  the program be put on hold a year ago, when they requested documents
outlining its legal framework and privacy protections. Those reports still
have not been handed over, and committee members are not happy at the
apparent subversion they suffered by Appropriations Committee members.

"It would appear they have not been satisfied in their demands," Sparapani
said of the Homeland Security Committee members who have objected to the
satellite surveillance.

Rep. Jane Harman, who has compared the Bush administration's efforts to
expand the use of spy satellites to its warrantless wiretapping program, has
been one of the key members attempting to block implementation of the
program until all these questions are answered.

"Having learned my lesson," she told the Journal, "I don't want to go there
again unless and until the legal framework for the entire program is
entirely spelled out."

Lawmakers also have seen a 60-page report from the Government Accountability
Office, on the condition they not release the report publicly. Sources
described its contents for the Journal's Siobhan Gorman, who reports that
GAO found that DHS "lacks assurance that NAO operations will comply with
applicable laws and privacy and civil liberties standards." 

The report cites gaps in privacy safeguards. The department, it found, lacks
controls to prevent improper use of domestic-intelligence data by other
agencies and provided insufficient assurance that requests for classified
information will be fully reviewed to ensure it can be legally provided.

A DHS official told Gorman the department worked hard to include privacy
protection and a spokeswoman justified the satellite surveillance's legality
because GAO did not specifically say it violates any current laws. 

That justification misses the point, Sparapani says, because GAO simply
answers questions posed by Congress, and since its latest report has not
been made public, no one outside of the government knows what those
questions are. 

Besides, he says, it's not GAO's job to determine whether programs are legal
or not.

"That's like asking the FDA to talk about Internet communications," he says.

Raw Story has left a message with DHS seeking further comment.

There are further concerns about whether the surveillance program would
violate Posse Comitatus, which prohibits the military from participating in
domestic law enforcement activities. It's "ridiculous" to think that's not
what would be happening under this program, Sparapani says.

The ACLU is examining all its options in trying to prevent implementation of
this program, which has dramatic potential to violate citizens rights, he
says, but filing a lawsuit against DHS may be untenable because of the
classified nature of the activities and the difficulty in being able to
demonstrate any particular defendant was directly harmed. 

Mostly, the ACLU will continue to push Congress and encouraging efforts of
lawmakers like Harman and Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson to stop
the program.

"The Homeland Security Committee has the right instinct," Sparapani says.
"It smells a rotten fish, and the only thing you can do with a rotten fish
is throw it out in the trash."

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.friends-partners.org/pipermail/fpspace/attachments/20081002/2c829137/attachment.html