Article Entry
23 Jun 2009
Comments:13
BREAKING NEWS: DHS to Kill Domestic Spy Satellite Program
Added by USGIF Category: Daily Intelligence Brief
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano plans to kill a program begun by the Bush administration that would use U.S. spy satellites for domestic security and law enforcement. Why? She consulted with state and local law enforcement officials and learned that they had far more pressing priorities than using satellites to collect information and eavesdrop on people. As you can imagine, the decision is causing a stir on both sides of the aisle. Rep. Jane Harman, a California Democrat and House homeland security committee member had this to say about Napolitano’s bold move: “I thought this was just an invitation to huge mischief. It shows real leadership on the part of Janet Napolitano.” Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., had this to say: “If it is true, it’s a very big mistake. This is definitely a step back in the war on terror.” What do you all think about this? Would this be a step back in the war on terror? Or was a prudent decision based on real feedback – it sounds like state and local law enforcement was not even using the data? We welcome all thoughts and feedback.
Tags: Department of Homeland Security, DHS Domestic Spy Satellite Program, domestic spying, Janet Napolitano, Rep. Peter King, Spy Satellites
Hmmmm. I understand some of the privacy concerns, but it seems to me that the advantages of potentially stopping drug smuggling at the borders and supporting fire and rescue operations among other things (read: catching terrorists?) outweigh the cause for concern … or maybe I should go on Netflix and rent Enemy of the State again?
Domestic use would likely require evidentiary use of overhead NTM products in a state or federal criminal court. Exposing the capabilities of such systems in this manner would be contrary to national security interests.
He who would trade the fourth amendment to the US Constitution for temporary security do not deserve the liberty that the Constitution protects.
In other words, I am glad the program was ended. May it be buried deeply so as to never come to life again.
The thought the state and local agencies would turn down resources if they new how to use it or the value I think is rediculous. This is just one more democrate saying a program won’t work or is not of value becuase it was developed under the Bush adminisitration. Should we do away with UAVs on our boarders as well?
From Linked-In:
Two words……Liberal politics. Those on the left have ALWAYS been willing to give up safety for personal freedom, often mis-quoting Benjamin Franklin, who said, “Those who would sacrifice essential liberty for a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty or safety.” The problem is, Franklin was referring to trading away freedom for the safety secured through loyalty to King George III of England. Liberals “liberally” apply this statement to ALL manner of personal freedoms, and they will gladly trade away ANYTHING which they feel impinges on those personal freedoms, even if for the sake of the greater good or for their community. They’d rather scream at George W. Bush for “spying on them” rather than have a capability which could provide massive assistance to first-responders during a crisis–with de-classified imagery for use in damage assessment, search & rescue, and which could actually save lives during a catastrophe like hurricane Katrina.
Liberals need to understand that sometimes both freedom AND safety are purchased with the temporary surrender of one’s personal comfort–but it’s a lesson it seems they are never willing to learn.
REF: Tom Geiger. Sounds a lot like Ben Franklin’s, “Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security” … Perhaps as relevant today as it was when proclaimed.
Napolitano is right to assume that local law enforcement would not need the use of overhead imagery. In most states, there wouldn’t be a scenario that would fit the costs of the system. In contrary to PA67, the use of UAVs on the borders is the right move by DHS and CBD. It is a localized issue to the borders. There would be no need for local law enforcement in South Dakota to use either UAVs or Satellites. The areas of interest would be focused on a few critical locations, that the US would not get the full use out of the entire system.
A bit more information available here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124572555214540265.html
From Linked-In:
Sounds like someone is making the right decision.
From Linked-In:
If she consulted the law enforcement officials who were meant to use the satellite program and found that they didn’t need the program, then the cancellation should be accepted. Of course, it won’t. Politicians get their support by fostering hysteria.
GSW:
“There would be no need for local law enforcement in South Dakota to use either UAVs or Satellites.”
You might want to read this article
http://www.shephard.co.uk/news/1821/customs-and-border-protection-uavs-begin-operations-in-north-dakota/
Yes you are correct there is a geographics difference between North and South Dakota, but the point I think you were trying to make is that some areas within the US are so remote that the value of imagery for local and state law enforcement would either never be used or only on very limited basis.
If I am correct in understanding your point of view. My point is that the US is a large area and that satellite resource can be retasked to support the region that needs it when they need it. Would the local and State agencies have used satellite imagery when the Red River flooded this past winter. There are many things that can be done and analyzed when you cross correlate data from different sources.
Also, don’tLocal state and Federal all work together when dealing with domestic issues? What about the monitoring of hate groups or domestics terrorist? Some of these groups are located in remote area and UAS or Satellite resources might be the only way to monitor what they are doing in the compound that is on a 100+acres ranch.
Pennsylvania67
From Linked-In:
Just one more step in the Obama administration’s “Five Year Plan.” He’s (hopefully) only temporary, but his destruction is permanent. Or it will take a lot of work to undue.
Can one individual or for that matter, group of people document how their privacy or individual liberties have been impacted by the domestic satellite program? Perhaps the word “spy” is causing you a problem, this was added by the liberals and media to instill fear. The next time a levey breaks in your back yard, a fire engulfs your neighborhood, or an earthquake or hurricane wipes out your local power grid and you’re looking for help from above, think about your privacy. Too bad the satellites will be turned off and we won’t be able to see you suffer or adequately respond to your needs. I’m really surprised that geospatially enlightened folks would have such a blind spot to the value of remote sensing resources.