‘Ridiculous’ to think program doesn’t violate Posse Comitatus, ACLU lobbyist tells War On You
The Department of Homeland Security has been given the money it needs to begin turning international spy satellites within the country’s borders, despite lingering fears about the program’s lack of focus and the potential for it to infringe upon Americans’ civil liberties.
After more than a year of delay, Congress quietly authorized DHS to begin sharing data gathered by military satellites with civilian and law enforcement agencies. A $634 billion spending bill signed into law earlier this week provides funds for DHS to establish the satellite surveillance program, known as the National Applications Office, without addressing the myriad concerns about NAO privacy and civil liberties protections that had been delaying its implementation.
Supporters of the program claim, according to the Wall Street Journal, that its scope will be limited to “emergency response and scientific needs,” but civil liberties advocates and some members of Congress fear the door has been open for the highly classified satellite surveillance program to shift into high gear.
“I’m kinda shocked it got through,” Tim Sparapani, an American Civil Liberties Union lobbyist, told Raw Story, saying the spending bill language authorizing the NAO is not “strong enough to forbid what we would want to see forbidden.”
Essentially, the bill only requires the Homeland Security Secretary to assure lawmakers that NAO programs comply with exisiting laws. Congress also has required the DHS Inspector General to provide quarterly classified reports on how much information has been collected by the domestic satellite surveillance, although the bill required those reports be made to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, not the Homeland Security Committees that are traditionally in charge of DHS oversight.
House Homeland Security Committee members recommended the program be put on hold a year ago, when they requested documents outlining its legal framework and privacy protections. Those reports still have not been handed over, and committee members are not happy at the apparent subversion they suffered by Appropriations Committee members.
“It would appear they have not been satisfied in their demands,” Sparapani said of the Homeland Security Committee members who have objected to the satellite surveillance.
Rep. Jane Harman, who has compared the Bush administration’s efforts to expand the use of spy satellites to its warrantless wiretapping program, has been one of the key members attempting to block implementation of the program until all these questions are answered.
“Having learned my lesson,” she told the Journal, “I don’t want to go there again unless and until the legal framework for the entire program is entirely spelled out.”
Lawmakers also have seen a 60-page report from the Government Accountability Office, on the condition they not release the report publicly. Sources described its contents for the Journal’s Siobhan Gorman, who reports that GAO found that DHS “lacks assurance that NAO operations will comply with applicable laws and privacy and civil liberties standards.”
The report cites gaps in privacy safeguards. The department, it found, lacks controls to prevent improper use of domestic-intelligence data by other agencies and provided insufficient assurance that requests for classified information will be fully reviewed to ensure it can be legally provided.
A DHS official told Gorman the department worked hard to include privacy protection and a spokeswoman justified the satellite surveillance’s legality because GAO did not specifically say it violates any current laws.
That justification misses the point, Sparapani says, because GAO simply answers questions posed by Congress, and since its latest report has not been made public, no one outside of the government knows what those questions are.
Besides, he says, it’s not GAO’s job to determine whether programs are legal or not.
“That’s like asking the FDA to talk about Internet communications,” he says.
Raw Story has left a message with DHS seeking further comment.
There are further concerns about whether the surveillance program would violate Posse Comitatus, which prohibits the military from participating in domestic law enforcement activities. It’s “ridiculous” to think that’s not what would be happening under this program, Sparapani says.
The ACLU is examining all its options in trying to prevent implementation of this program, which has dramatic potential to violate citizens rights, he says, but filing a lawsuit against DHS may be untenable because of the classified nature of the activities and the difficulty in being able to demonstrate any particular defendant was directly harmed.
Mostly, the ACLU will continue to push Congress and encouraging efforts of lawmakers like Harman and Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson to stop the program.
“The Homeland Security Committee has the right instinct,” Sparapani says. “It smells a rotten fish, and the only thing you can do with a rotten fish is throw it out in the trash.”
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
“Since 9/11, our Constitutional rights have been systematically dismantled:
- USA Patriot Act - A 342 page document presented to Congress one day before voting on it that allows the government access to your bank and email accounts, as well as your medical and phone records with no court order. They can also search your home anytime without a warrant.
- USA Patriot Act II - This one allows secret government arrests, the legal authority to seize your American citizenship, and the extraction of your DNA if you are deemed a potential terrorist.
- Military Commissions Act of 2006 - Ends habeas corpus, the right to an attorney, and the right to court review of one’s detention and arrest. Without this most basic right, all other rights are gone too since anyone can be detained indefinitely. Now anyone may be arrested and incarcerated and nobody would know.
- NSPD 51 - A directive signed by George W. Bush on May 9, 2007, that allows the President to declare martial law, effectively transforming the U.S. into a dictatorship with no checks and balances from the Legislative or Judicial Branches. Parts of this directive are considered classified and members of Congress have been denied the right to review it.
- Protect America Act of 2007 - Allows unprecedented domestic wiretapping and surveillance activities with a reduction in FISA court oversight. Probable cause is not needed.
- John Warner Defense Authorization Act - Signed by George W. Bush on October 17, 2007, this act allows the President to declare a public emergency and station troops anywhere in America without the consent of the governor or local authorities to “suppress public disorder.
- Homegrown Terrorism and Radicalization Act - Passed overwhelmingly by Congress on October 23, 2007, is now awaiting a Senate vote. This act will beget a new crackdown on dissent and the Constitutional rights of American citizens. The definitions of “terrorism” and “extremism” are so vague that they could be used to generalize against any group that is working against the policies of the Administration. In this bill, “violent radicalization” criminalizes thought and ideology while “homegrown terrorism” is defined as “the planed use of force to coerce the government.” The term, “force” could encompass political activities such as protests, marches, or any other form of non-violent resistance.
So when you add in:
- Halliburton Confirms Camps Constructed
- Halliburton’s Immigrant Detention Centers
- Homeland Security Contracts for Vast New Detention Camps
- Halliburton Confirms Concentration Camps Already Constructed
- KBR awarded Homeland Security contract worth up to $385M
- This from Halliburton’s own website
It starts to get a little scary.”
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
It has been reported that over 500,000 spying requests were made in the UK last year from authorities such as the Police force to local councils. This represents a substantial jump from the 350,000 requests in 2006 and is starting to worry some of the civil liberty groups in the UK.
Communications Commissioner Sir Paul Kennedy also confirmed that of the 500,000 plus requests, 1,707 were from local councils who have been accused of misusing the idea of the service. The power of surveillance was originally extended to an array of public bodies initially for anti-terrorist uses but things seem to have progressed to a whole new level.
Councils have been known to use the service to track fly tippers and those whom they suspect of evading council taxes. Even though the service only allows access to phone bills and internet page visits, and not actually listening in on phone calls, there are concerns that the so called Big Brother scenario is starting to grow.
When you consider the array of CCTV cameras in the UK as well as the option for public bodies to request permission to spy, the UK has to be one of the most closely monitored states in the world, but is the system being used for its original purpose?
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), who has figured prominently in recent political news for his attempts to begin impeachment hearings against President George W. Bush, today announced that the congressional subcommittee he chairs will look into reports of peace groups being surveilled by police and private investigators.
“[M]ost people would be upset to know that police were spying on lawful citizens and infiltrating peaceful organizations, rather than chasing down real criminals,” said Kucinich in a press release delivered to RAW STORY. “At a minimum, such police spying is clearly a waste of taxpayer dollars and a diversion from the mission of protecting and serving the people.
“I want the subcommittee to determine how widespread these activities are and who ordered them,” the Ohio Democrat and former presidential candidate said.
Kucinich chairs the House Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
The press release referred to reports that Maryland state police officers infiltrated peace and anti-death penalty groups and that private investigators working on behalf of “several large corporations” had surveilled environmental groups.
Such surveillance is apparently not limited to law enforcement and private investigators. In January 2007, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) released a report showing “widespread Pentagon surveillance of peace activists.”
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
