Bush Administration Set to Use New Spy Program in U.S.

[Red Ketchup]

Looks like the USA is getting their very own KGB...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...041103655.html



Administration Set to Use New Spy Program in U.S.
Congressional Critics Want More Assurances of Legality

By Spencer S. Hsu
Washington 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 assessment "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.

[SMCengineer]

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.

Democrats say Chertoff has not spelled out what federal laws govern the NAO, whose funding and size are classified.

You know we're in a bad state when democrats sound and act more conservative than republicans.

[ChrisJL]

That's scary

[Red Ketchup]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I've always been under the impression that Americans spying on their own people on American soil was supposed to be a BIG no no.

Red

[lotaquestions]

let em listen, what ever keeps me safe

[SMCengineer]

let em listen, what ever keeps me safe

That's gonna keep you safe? How?

[SMCengineer]

let em listen, what ever keeps me safe

This has been quoted ad nausaem, but it's the only thing that really comes to mind:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-Benjamin Franklin

[***xxx***]

But it's OK, cause the sheep will fall in line just like with everything else, completely blind to the downward spiraling staircase we are on, all of the freedoms we died to preserve for all these generations, legislated away a tiny little piece at a time, so as to not make too big a ripple in the water all at once.

welcome to the new america...

[SMCengineer]

The new America? We've been on this road since the start of the progressive era in 1913. There's nothing new about it.

[BigLittleTim]

The new America? We've been on this road since the start of the progressive era in 1913. There's nothing new about it.

Interestingly, it's the conservative Republican party that's at the forefront of the domestic spying program.

The "progressive era" gave us the eight hour work day, women's suffrage, equal rights for blacks, Social Security... all extensions of popular liberties to a larger and larger number of citizens and championed by the Democratic Party. There is nothing progressive about the Republican Party which is conservative (concentrating all power into fewer and fewer hands.)

"Oppressor as Protector" is an old old tactic used by governements since the beginning of time. When they round you up and throw your life away for having used steroids you can think how lucky you are they've used their un-constitutional powers to protect our lily-white puritan republic from the "bad guys" (ie: YOU)

-BigLittleTim

[SMCengineer]

Interestingly, it's the conservative Republican party that's at the forefront of the domestic spying program.

First of all, conservatives are not at the forefront of the domestic spying program. In fact, there are no conservatives presently in the White House. The people you're referring to are self proclaimed "compassionate conservatives" or neo-conservatives. Do not confuse them. They're complete oppposites, just as liberals and classic liberals are opposites. No real conservative would ever support such legislation!

The "progressive era" gave us the eight hour work day, women's suffrage, equal rights for blacks, Social Security... all extensions of popular liberties to a larger and larger number of citizens and championed by the Democratic Party.

I could tear this apart, but it would take the thread in a completely different direction. Let me just mention one thing, Social Security is America's economic cancer, yet you think that was a positive attribute to America? Do you also think it was constitutional or an extension of our liberties?

There is nothing progressive about the Republican Party which is conservative (concentrating all power into fewer and fewer hands.)

Really? Who does this sound like:
-Advocacy of self-determination by ethnic groups
-Advocacy of the spread of democracy
-Anti-isolationism, in favor of intervention to help create peace and / or spread freedom

Bush? Cheney? Maybe Mccain? Actually those are all Wilsonian traits. Don't think the similarities end there. Bush's ideals are direct descendents of Wilson's except that Wilson makes Bush look inocent. I hate to tell you this, but the neo-conservative movement was the brainchild of radical liberals. Look-up Irving Krystal to start. You need to do a little more research on the progressive era before you boast about it and make it sound like something it wasn't.

"Oppressor as Protector" is an old old tactic used by governements since the beginning of time. When they round you up and throw your life away for having used steroids you can think how lucky you are they've used their un-constitutional powers to protect our lily-white puritan republic from the "bad guys" (ie: YOU)

-BigLittleTim

So because I'm a white conservative republican I'm the "bad guy?" Funny, you think that because I'm a conservative republican that I would blindly support Bush or this legislation. Have you read the rest of the thread, it's pretty clear that I'm against it. Sadly, you probably also think there's a difference between Democrats and Republicans. Here's a little secret: there currently isn't. Bush is more akin to Woodrow Wilson than he ever was to Calvin Coolidge or to Grover Cleveland. That should tell you something if you know history. As for AAS, yes it's unconstitutional, but the person to set that precedent was Wilson with Prohibition. Unfortunately, we don't learn from history and as always it repeats itself.