HARMAN INTRODUCES BILLS TO SHUT DOWN DHS MILITARY SATELLITE OFFICE

[bigtree]

from the ACLU: http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/39763prs20090605.html


WASHINGTON – Representative Jane Harman (D-CA) introduced two bills last night to stop the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) use of satellite imagery from intelligence agencies for homeland security and law enforcement purposes. The legislation, H.R. 2703 and 2704, will prohibit funding for and close the DHS’ National Application Office (NAO). This troubled office is responsible for a domestic surveillance program that the American Civil Liberties Union had long opposed in testimony and letters to Congress over the past two years.

The following can be attributed to Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office:

“Today, Representative Harman put the brakes on the drift towards the surveillance society. Thanks to Representative Harman’s leadership, Congress will take the first step toward shutting down the National Application Office and its ill-conceived domestic surveillance program. This legislation would restrain domestic use of spy satellites while allowing the Department of Interior’s program to continue using its imagery in a responsible way. With billions of dollars going to build satellites that see more than the human eye, the idea of turning these lenses on Americans should raise alarm bells for everyone.”



from Rep. Harman's office: http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ca36_harman/June4_NAObills.shtml

Harman issued the following floor statement of introduction:

Some of the most powerful military and intelligence satellites in the world are designed and produced in my Congressional District. They are remarkably formidable tools that daily assist our troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, and are indispensable in learning and thwarting the plans of those who would do us harm.

But imagine, for a moment, what it would be like if one of these satellites were directed on your neighborhood or home, a school or place of worship – and without an adequate legal framework or operating procedures in place for regulating their use. I daresay the reaction might be that Big Brother has finally arrived and the black helicopters can’t be far behind.

Yet this is precisely what the Department of Homeland Security has done in standing up the benign-sounding National Applications Office, or NAO.

Despite objections by the civil liberties community, a series of letters sent by Members of Congress, an established record of opposition by the House Homeland Security Committee and the prior fencing of funds, the DHS has requested funding in the classified annex to its FY2010 budget for the NAO.

The Appropriations Committee has repeatedly expressed skepticism about the need for the NAO, and fenced funding for the office last year. I understand that the Committee intends to send a strong message again this year. I introduce two bills today to stop the Department of Homeland Security from moving ahead with the misguided National Applications Office.

The first bill, introduced with Representative Norm Dicks, prohibits DHS from expending any funds on this office. The second bill de-authorizes the NAO, requiring the Secretary of Homeland Security to close the office immediately.

As proposed, the NAO, housed in the DHS Office of Intelligence & Analysis, would manage the tasking of military intelligence satellites over the United States – despite the absence a of clear legal framework, legitimate Posse Comitatus concerns, and even though the Interior Department already has existing circumscribed authority to deploy satellites over large-scale public events or natural disasters.

In its current form, the NAO would enable a group of undefined law enforcement and homeland security “users” greater access to imagery collection capabilities of the intelligence community – purportedly to supplement data already available during disasters or to aid in “investigations.” It would serve as a clearinghouse for requests by law enforcement, border security, and other domestic homeland security agencies to access real-time, high-quality feeds from spy satellites. Except law enforcement officials haven’t asked for the additional capability and major law enforcement organizations do not believe it is necessary.

The new DHS leadership has assured me in my role as the Chair of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence & Terrorism Risk Assessment that the issue is under review. Although Congress last year withheld most funding for the NAO, the Department has again budgeted for the office (the exact amount is classified) without prior consultation or notification of the relevant congressional committees.

Well … not if we can help it.

Today, we introduce legislation to shut down the NAO – period.

[Hekate]

1. KnR. Thanks Jane; this is a good start. nt

[BlooInBloo]

2. She was fine with it until SHE got spied on. Worthless piece of shit hypocrite.

[dkf]

3. Yes but now she will have a changed perspective for

the rest of her life.

[BlooInBloo]

6. Only for her.

[robinlynne]

15. Might be because she also now has a serious challenger for her seat!

MARCY WINOGRAD FOR CONGRESS IN 2010!!!!!!!!!!!

[bigtree]

7. ALL politicians are hypocrites

. . . at one point or the other.

[Motown_Johnny]

4. I don't have a problem with the use of satellite images for security.

Nor do I have a problem with more security cameras in public areas for law enforcement.
Honestly, every time I see some ATM camera catches the image of a small child who goes missing I wish we had many many more cameras that law enforcement could use to help protect citizens.

Also....

Big Brother references are not acceptable in this discussion. Big Brother was able to look into your home, your private space. These satellite images and security cameras only are able to capture images that are not in your private space. If you want to amend laws to protect privacy that is fine with me but I think everyone should understand that public spaces are not private and you should not expect the same level of privacy when out in public.

[John Q. Citizen]

9. But how many more kids could be saved with manditory camers in homes?

For the children?

Or don't you really care enough about the children?

Do you have something to hide?

[imdjh]

12. I haven't made up my mind on this- but are you saying that private space must be indoors?

Do I not have the right, the expectation of privacy in my own backyard assuming that there is no obvious vantage point from a legal structure?

I disagree with that notion. If the cops can see me in my backyard from the street, or standing in my neighbor's yard- without standing on a ladder, then I have no expectation of privacy. If however, they have to use a ladder, a helicopter, or a satelite then IMO they are violating my privacy.

BTW, I realize that I have already been shot down on this one, in that the courts (If I am not mistaken) have ruled that helicopters spotting pot on private property is not an invasion, and neither is infrared or heat sensoring. I disagree. I think that the police need as much cause to aim a tricorder at your house as they do to enter it. By the helicopter exception, then listenign devices aimed at your windows would also not be an invasion of privacy. I have no idea if those are permitted or not.

[bigtree]

13. Big Brother certainly does apply here

My yard isn't my 'private space?'

I think the laws which require a legal 'framework' for this domestic spying were established to prevent a slippery slope into outright, unjustified invasions of our privacy by folks who have no business employing that surveillance for their own purposes. You may well want to surrender those rights to privacy that Harman apparently wants to protect, but the government shouldn't be allowed to break the law just because you're okay with it. I don't see any need to change the Posse Comitatus requirements to accommodate this unlawful domestic spying, and I certainly am not in favor of the government continuing Bush's anti-democratic bending of the law to accommodate their imagined (contrived) defense of 'homeland security'.

[Iwillnevergiveup]

5. It could be

Harmon is afraid of Marcy Winograd who managed nearly 38% of the vote running against her last year.
She should be - Marcy has more name recognition and support this time around. She's L.A. President of PDA, so she's on the right side of health care, too.

[bigtree]

8. good

Those primary challenges are what make democracy work.

[John Q. Citizen]

11. I was wondering if that might have something to do with it, also. We don't usually see

such progressive friendly initiatives out of Rep Harmon.

Well, for what ever reason, I'm glad she's doing it.

[notadmblnd]

10. for once Ms Harmon has my support

normally, I don't agree with her much. I've always thought she spends too much time defending and endorsing RW policies.

[krispos42]

14. It's US soil.

If we need somebody spied on from the air, use a friggin' airplane or UAV.



Yanno, it'a s wonder anybody bothers to leave their house anymore.