Some form of "Just trust us", was the operative phrase. The NYT wonders this morning "How, exactly, has this worked, so far?",

One term, frequently used by Allen, was Customer Base. The plan is for the NAO to serve as a clearing house for law enforcement requests to access the spy satellite data upon NAO's approval. That approval will be granted through inhouse review, with no Judicial oversite, and no explaination forth coming to the Committee as to what, exactly, the guidelines for approval would be.

The legal staff of both Homeland Security and the NAO declined to attend the hearings, claiming, according to Chairman Thompson that they did not wish to appear on a panel that included the ACLU.

The reaction of the Committee on Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS), Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing, and Terrorism Risk Assessment Chair Jane Harman (D-CA), and Subcommittee on Management, Investigations, and Oversight Chairman Christopher P. Carney (D-PA) was a joy to behold.

Both Republican and Democratic members of the Committee forcefully expressed their conviction that the proposed program would violate the Posse Comitatus Act.

They have sent the following letter to Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and Charles Allen, Assistant Secretary for Intelligence & Analysis, Department of Homeland Security regarding the Department’s new spy satellite program.

Dear Secretary Chertoff and Assistant Secretary Allen: As you know, our Committee held a hearing today on "Turning Spy Satellites on the Homeland." The Department’s new National Applications Office (NAO), charged with overseeing such a program and scheduled to begin operations on October 1, raises very serious privacy and civil liberties concerns. We are so concerned that, as the Department’s authorizing Committee, we are calling for a moratorium on the program until the many Constitutional, legal and organizational questions it raises are answered. Today’s testimony made clear that there is effectively no legal framework governing the domestic use of satellite imagery for the various purposes envisioned by the Department. Without this legal framework, the Department runs the risk of creating a program that – while well-intended – could be misused and violate Americans’ Constitutional rights. The Department’s failure to include its Privacy Officer and the Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Officer before this July, almost two years after planning for the NAO began, only heightens our sense of concern. Privacy and civil liberties simply cannot remain an afterthought at the Department. We ask that you provide the Committee with the written legal framework under which the NAO will operate, the standard operating procedures (SOPs) for the NAO – particularly those SOPs that will be used for requests by State, local, and tribal law enforcement, the privacy and civil liberties safeguards that will accompany any use of satellite imagery, and an analysis of how the program conforms with Posse Comitatus. The use of geospatial information from military intelligence satellites may turn out to be a valuable tool in protecting the homeland. But until the Committee receives those written documents and has had a full opportunity to review them, offer comments, and help shape appropriate procedures and protocols, we cannot and will not support the expanded use of satellite imagery by the NAO. We appreciate your agreement to provide these materials requested above and look forward to working together to assure the American people that their privacy and civil liberties will be protected. Sincerely, Bennie G. Thompson

Chairman Jane Harman

Chair

Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing, & Terrorism Risk Assessment Christopher P. Carney

Chairman

Subcommittee on Management, Investigations & Oversight

These Congressional Representitives seem to have developed a spine when the Constitution is at risk. Committee on Homeland Security Letter

Jane Harmon and Sheila Jackson Lee, in particular, were livid at the high handed tactics on display by the panel, and several Republican Congressmen supported their self-proclaimed "rants". It is also interesting to watch Charles Allen, former CIA, go from the typical Executive Branch distain for Congress, to a growing realization that he had really screwed up and that this Committe, as well as the Chairs of others in attendance, held the power to stop this program if he was not both more forthcoming, and a lot more cooperative.

This is not over. Executive Signing Statements come to mind as the first action the White House will take to make sure they increase the Big Brother Society they are trying to impose. Of course, continuing the program in secret is another tactic this Administration uses so well.

The ACLU has it's hands full trying to keep up with the extra-Constitutional activities of the Department of Homeland Security. (Everytime I type those words I want to wash my hands - They are so Germany, 1930's.) They sent a representative to the hearing and it was his suggestion that the Committee block the October 1st start date for this program, insisting that Congress must establish legal controls and not rely on the good will of men to control the use of military technology to spy on Americans, in violation of existing law.

This would be a good time to throw a few bucks to the ACLU. It would also be a good time to contact your Congressional Representative and express your outrage at the further erosion of your freedoms under this government.

If we hadn't gotten the reins last November, I'm quite sure this would have gone both unheralded, and unchallenged.

Update: I just added the National Applications Office link to this diary. Hat tip to Papicek!