Drudge: Spy satellites watch Americans from space

"Jim Oberg" wrote in message
...
The domestic activities he described used commercial imagery
from private observation satellites, bought on the open market.

As for other US 'assets' with higher resolution, why bother
to target them on domestic US areas when it's far cheaper and
quicker to fly a plane or helicopter over the area of interest.
Satellites are most useful for 'denied airspace'.



That really isn't the issue. It's that these are secret agencies
that are moving into domestic arenas. Police have to be
accountable to the public, their policies are public and
established by elected representatives. Secret agencies such
as the NSA operate outside all the normal democratic
processes.

It's through all those open and democratic processes of
oversight that the public can ..know...no abuses are
taking place and change/punish when it has. With
secret agencies we cannot do any of that.


The President has yet to clearly state under what law
the surveillance is specifically authorized. Instead they've
said it doesn't violate the constitution. Which implies
they are operating not so much in violation of the law, but
outside of it, where there's yet to be laws.

To me, until this is decided by the Supreme Court it'll
be an open issue. Do we really want or need to have
foreign and domestic agencies all mixed up into one
great big policing machine?

Congress has always been clear they wish the two
to be kept seperate. The courts need to say which
branch of govt gets to decide.


Jonathan

s






"jonathan" wrote


And now the director boasts of the increasingly domestic
role of his agency in the article.

"the director of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency,
retired Air Force Lt. Gen. James Clapper, is proud of that
domestic mission." "On Clapper's watch of the last five years,
his agency has found ways to expand its mission to help prepare
security at Super Bowls and political conventions or deal
with natural disasters, such as hurricanes and forest fires."

That quote concerning 'the last five years' is a big clue.
As in the last five years the mission of this agency has
changed, again in the directors own words.


"The focus of the NSG remains on threats to our security -the global
war on terrorism, impending global threats such as the proliferation of
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD),and the regional developments
that threaten US national interests.This current document directly
supports
these focus areas,builds on the guidance in the 2004 Statement of
Strategic
Intent,and aligns with the strategic guidance outlined in the Director
of National Intelligence (DNI)US National Intelligence Strategy and
the Department of Defense (DoD)Defense Intelligence Planning
Guidance."

"The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, the Commission
on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons
of Mass Destruction, and the Final Report of the National Commission
on the Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission
Report) all cite change as fundamental to combating the threats to
our nation and the world. We face adversaries who operate in
loosely associated groups, who employ unconventional
methods of insurgency and terrorism, and who seek to employ
WMD or other methods to produce catastrophic effects.
However, we also continue to face conventional adversaries who
are aggressively developing, acquiring, and employing technologies
and techniques intended to neutralize the advantages we have had to
date."



Don't you see the big picture??? Since 9/11 the separation between
foreign and domestic surveillance has been completely eliminated.
And they did this without going through Congress or the Courts first.
They just ran with their self proclaimed 9/11 mandate and
did whatever they pleased.

And the public is just now beggining to find out.



NGA homepage
http://www.nga.mil/portal/site/nga01...ront_door=true

NGA history
http://www.nga.mil/StaticFiles/OCR/nga_history.pdf

The NSG Mission

http://www.nga.mil/NGASiteContent/St...gic_intent.pdf



Of course, the "professional pretenders" in Hollywood
have filled the screens for years with fantasy satellites
that zoom in on running citizens on the streets of
America. But as the subtitle under Clooney should
really read," I'm not really an intellectual but I play
one in the movies." That's good enough for most
talk shows! grin


You're starting to sound like Rush. He can be very
entertaining, but as a journalist, no one takes him seriously
due to his obvious bias. As for Clooney and his leftist
activism, such extremists left or right serve a public use
as the opposite extremes help define where the middle is
and hence the truth.

I thought the press was supposed to be equally skeptical
of both sides, of everything, and every chance they get?


s

Yeah, but at the same time, don't we hear a lot
of whining from Bushaters that he FAILED to take
these steps to prevent 9-11?




"jonathan" wrote in message
news

"Jim Oberg" wrote in message
...
The domestic activities he described used commercial imagery
from private observation satellites, bought on the open market.

As for other US 'assets' with higher resolution, why bother
to target them on domestic US areas when it's far cheaper and
quicker to fly a plane or helicopter over the area of interest.
Satellites are most useful for 'denied airspace'.



That really isn't the issue. It's that these are secret agencies
that are moving into domestic arenas. Police have to be
accountable to the public, their policies are public and
established by elected representatives. Secret agencies such
as the NSA operate outside all the normal democratic
processes.

It's through all those open and democratic processes of
oversight that the public can ..know...no abuses are
taking place and change/punish when it has. With
secret agencies we cannot do any of that.


The President has yet to clearly state under what law
the surveillance is specifically authorized. Instead they've
said it doesn't violate the constitution. Which implies
they are operating not so much in violation of the law, but
outside of it, where there's yet to be laws.

To me, until this is decided by the Supreme Court it'll
be an open issue. Do we really want or need to have
foreign and domestic agencies all mixed up into one
great big policing machine?

Congress has always been clear they wish the two
to be kept seperate. The courts need to say which
branch of govt gets to decide.


Jonathan

s






"jonathan" wrote


And now the director boasts of the increasingly domestic
role of his agency in the article.

"the director of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency,
retired Air Force Lt. Gen. James Clapper, is proud of that
domestic mission." "On Clapper's watch of the last five years,
his agency has found ways to expand its mission to help prepare
security at Super Bowls and political conventions or deal
with natural disasters, such as hurricanes and forest fires."

That quote concerning 'the last five years' is a big clue.
As in the last five years the mission of this agency has
changed, again in the directors own words.


"The focus of the NSG remains on threats to our security -the global
war on terrorism, impending global threats such as the proliferation of
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD),and the regional developments
that threaten US national interests.This current document directly
supports
these focus areas,builds on the guidance in the 2004 Statement of
Strategic
Intent,and aligns with the strategic guidance outlined in the Director
of National Intelligence (DNI)US National Intelligence Strategy and
the Department of Defense (DoD)Defense Intelligence Planning
Guidance."

"The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, the Commission
on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons
of Mass Destruction, and the Final Report of the National Commission
on the Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission
Report) all cite change as fundamental to combating the threats to
our nation and the world. We face adversaries who operate in
loosely associated groups, who employ unconventional
methods of insurgency and terrorism, and who seek to employ
WMD or other methods to produce catastrophic effects.
However, we also continue to face conventional adversaries who
are aggressively developing, acquiring, and employing technologies
and techniques intended to neutralize the advantages we have had to
date."



Don't you see the big picture??? Since 9/11 the separation between
foreign and domestic surveillance has been completely eliminated.
And they did this without going through Congress or the Courts first.
They just ran with their self proclaimed 9/11 mandate and
did whatever they pleased.

And the public is just now beggining to find out.



NGA homepage
http://www.nga.mil/portal/site/nga01...ront_door=true

NGA history
http://www.nga.mil/StaticFiles/OCR/nga_history.pdf

The NSG Mission

http://www.nga.mil/NGASiteContent/St...gic_intent.pdf



Of course, the "professional pretenders" in Hollywood
have filled the screens for years with fantasy satellites
that zoom in on running citizens on the streets of
America. But as the subtitle under Clooney should
really read," I'm not really an intellectual but I play
one in the movies." That's good enough for most
talk shows! grin


You're starting to sound like Rush. He can be very
entertaining, but as a journalist, no one takes him seriously
due to his obvious bias. As for Clooney and his leftist
activism, such extremists left or right serve a public use
as the opposite extremes help define where the middle is
and hence the truth.

I thought the press was supposed to be equally skeptical
of both sides, of everything, and every chance they get?


s

Jim Oberg wrote:

Yeah, but at the same time, don't we hear a lot
of whining from Bushaters that he FAILED to take
these steps to prevent 9-11?

Yup. In their twenty-twenty hindsight, Bush wasn't doing enough dot
connecting prior to 9-11, but since then, unaccountably, he's done too
much. Hard to connect dots when you're not allowed to see them.

"Jim Oberg" wrote in message
...
Yeah, but at the same time, don't we hear a lot
of whining from Bushaters that he FAILED to take
these steps to prevent 9-11?

Maybe, but they're wrong. The failures were, in my estimation, of three
types:
1. Failure to take advantage of information already in the system.
2. An ossified infrastructure (both technical and procedural) which served
to decrease rather than facilitate information flow (of information already
in the system.)
3. A failure (in some cases) to follow up (using existing and legal tools)
suspicions raised by lower-level agents.

With the exception of the newest NSA traffic analysis (and possibly the
requirement that IP providers maintain records of all web sites visited by
their subscribers for the duration of the account and one year after), there
appear (to me) to be perfectly legal means for appropriate members of the
intelligence community to obtain the data. Even access to the phone call
records can be legally obtained by the FBI, but not on the wide scale that
the NSA requested.

Jim Oberg ) wrote:
: Yeah, but at the same time, don't we hear a lot
: of whining from Bushaters that he FAILED to take
: these steps to prevent 9-11?

No, that was more of ignoring the previous adminsiration's work on
terrorism and make a bigger deal out of cleaning the Oval Office.

We got hit in early 93 right when Clinton took over for Bush Sr. (WTC 1st
time). 9/11 happened early in Bush Jr.'s 1st term. Where is discussion
to being more aware during 2009 when we have a new president?

It is like NASA and their disasters. They all occurred during the week of
Jan. 26 - Feb. 1. Don't launch anything during that week! Same sort of
common sense, you GOPers claim to have a lock on.

Eric

"jonathan" wrote in message
news
That really isn't the issue. It's that these are secret agencies

If they were *secret*, you wouldn't know about them.

"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
.. .

"jonathan" wrote in message
news
That really isn't the issue. It's that these are secret agencies

If they were *secret*, you wouldn't know about them.


The nickname for the NSA is 'No Such Agency'~

Scott Hedrick ) wrote:

: "jonathan" wrote in message
: news : That really isn't the issue. It's that these are secret agencies

: If they were *secret*, you wouldn't know about them.

Ah Hedrick, you would have made a fine Communist Party member in the
former Soviet Union...

O-BORG, have you no shame? Probably not. I wonder if you even care,
again, probably not. With the big bucks you get from Defense Inc. why
would you. Some people have a conscience, some don't. Your feeble
attempts to cover-up UFOs and ETs, not to mention the long-term
back-engineering of ET craft, are rather sad. I guess at the end of
the day when you count the millions you (and many others) have
ripped-off from hard-working Americans, you can live with the loss of
your soul. This is why the American Empire will probably no longer
exist, because of greed-heads cannot contain themselves.

In sci.space.policy wrote:
O-BORG, have you no shame? Probably not. I wonder if you even care,
again, probably not. With the big bucks you get from Defense Inc. why
would you. Some people have a conscience, some don't. Your feeble
attempts to cover-up UFOs and ETs, not to mention the long-term
back-engineering of ET craft, are rather sad. I guess at the end of
the day when you count the millions you (and many others) have
ripped-off from hard-working Americans, you can live with the loss of
your soul. This is why the American Empire will probably no longer
exist, because of greed-heads cannot contain themselves.


This is a classic. Where do these people come from?
(The post was so short and intense that I felt it was worth
quoting it in entirety.)