This blog supplements Chapter 3 of America in Peril
24 April 2008
The Director of National Intelligence in May 2007 announced the availability of America’s most powerful spy satellites for use domestically against the war on terror. Law enforcement officials at all levels of government will have access to super precision data on selected targets within the US from Measurement and Signature Intelligence (MASINT), Imaging Intelligence (IMINT), and Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) spacecraft. Ostensibly this is to enhance border and seaport security, get information on critical infrastructure, monitor suspected people, survey suspicious events, detect explosives and other substances, and manage natural disasters. Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff set up the National Applications Office (NAO) to open on October 1st, the beginning of fiscal year 2008, to handle requests for spy satellite data. That’s as far as Chapter 3 of America in Peril went. But there is now more to the story.
The NAO didn’t open in October 2007. A House Homeland Security Committee letter dated 26 September 2007 pointed out how at least four programs – Secure Flight, CAPPS II, ADVISE, and MATRIX – were either cancelled or suspended because they violated privacy rules. (See Chapters 2 & 3 of America in Peril for a description of these programs) The letter continued: “We do not want the Department [of Homeland Security] to repeat the same mistakes with this program.” Then the letter said that given “the gravity and civil liberties issues in play with the NAO,” the committee would request the joint House-Senate Conference Committee to withhold funding for NAO until the legal safeguards and operating procedures were received, reviewed, and assessed.
Several months were needed to draw up the required documents. They were then presented to Congress in early spring of 2008. House Homeland Security Chairman Bennie G. Thompson sent a reply to Chertoff on April 8th, saying the briefings “did not allay any of our concerns…. Should you proceed with the [program] without addressing our concerns, we will take appropriate steps to discontinue it.” (Siobhan Gorman, The Wall Street Journal, 8 April 2008) Chertoff said he would send additional documents that week.
Those documents were submitted on April 10th but legislators quickly branded them inadequate. Representative Jane Harman, citing the domestic spying by NSA, said: “I have had firsthand experience with the trust-me theory of law from this administration. I won’t make the same mistake… I want to see the legal underpinnings for the whole program.” Chairman Thompson said what was submitted was “a good start,” and added: “We still don’t know whether the NAO will pass constitutional muster since no legal framework has been provided.” (Spencer S. Hsu, Washington Post, 12 April 2008)
Homeland Security spokeswoman Laura Keehner called the demands unwarranted because the “legal framework that governs the National Applications Office … is reflected in the Constitution, the U.S. Code and all U.S. laws.” (Hsu, op. cit.) Well, yes. But recall that is what was supposed to be guiding the NSA regarding domestic spying.
That is the standoff as of this date. I will put future developments in a subsequent blog.
Bob Aldridge.
This entry was posted
on Thursday, April 24th, 2008 at 5:07 pm and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.