• Forum
• SITREP
• Military
• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security

• Space

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Public Eye

Subject:      Re: FBI spysats
From:         thomsona@netcom.com (Allen Thomson)
Date:         1996/04/09
Message-Id:   <thomsonaDpMCzy.Lrx@netcom.com>
Newsgroups:   alt.politics.org.cia,alt.politics.org.fbi,
alt.privacy,sci.space.policy,alt.politics.org.nro,dod.nro.oso

>In article <316A5E1C.6F40@fas.org>, John Pike <johnpike@fas.org> writes:
>> Well, like I said, at least until recently the DOD side of NRO would have
>> had a posse comitatus problem
>>      http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1385.html
>
>Useful URL's.
>
>I'm surely no expert, but sections 371(a)
>(http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/371.html):
>
>371. Use of information collected during military operations
>   (a) The Secretary of Defense may, in accordance with other
>   applicable law, provide to Federal, State, or local civilian law
>   enforcement officials any information collected during the normal
>   course of military training or operations that may be relevant to
>   a violation of any Federal or State law within the jurisdiction of
>   such officials.
>
>
>and 372 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/372.html):
>
> 372. Use of military equipment and facilities
>   The Secretary of Defense may, in accordance with other applicable
>   law, make available any equipment (including associated supplies
>   or spare parts), base facility, or research facility of the
>   Department of Defense to any Federal, State, or local civilian law
>   enforcement official for law enforcement purposes.
>
>would seem to allow almost anything.  (IMINT sats surely count as
>"equipment" if not "research facilities.")  Of course it's not clear
>what "other applicable law" might be.
>
   Also, it seems that the limits on collecting non-evidential information 
are much less restrictive than those on intelligence which is meant to go to 
court.
   In the case in point, if the Feds had sufficient evidence to get an 
arrest warrant against T.K. (and, presumably, to take before a grand jury),
then it's my understanding that they wouldn't have any serious legal problems
in getting whatever information they asked for to help in his arrest.
   So if, post-warrant, the FBI weren't sure of the cabin's location amidst 
all those trees, they could ask the competent organs to provide them with 
visible/IR/radar/whatever imagery to aid in the arrest.  No NTM information 
would be used to prosecute him in court, and so, as I understand it, this is 
not a legal issue.
   Corrections from real lawyers would be welcome.