US turns U-2 spy planes on itself, raising specter of broader surveillance

[unhappycamper]

US turns U-2 spy planes on itself, raising specter of broader surveillance
John Byrne
Published: Thursday August 9, 2007


In a striking but unnoticed extension of domestic surveillance, the little-known National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency deployed a U-2 spy plane on the region affected by Hurricane Katrina in 2005 to track hazards to public health.

In an article Thursday, Salon's Tim Shorrock explores the emergence of the NGA, born in 1996 from a partnership between the CIA, the Pentagon and the agency that maintains America's spy satellites.

The single-seat high-altitude plane, originally designed for CIA spy missions -- remembered perhaps for a 1960 mission where a plane was shot down over the Soveit Union -- is a key element of the US arsenal in collecting intelligence overseas. Its high-resolution imagery is critical for examining nuclear and other weapons sites.

In a way, Shorrock suggests the visible mission of the U-2 over New Orleans is akin to the visible mission of the U-2 over the Soviet Union -- a tip of the iceberg in a much larger program that most of America knows nothing about.

He notes that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' recent testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee for the first time confirmed the existence of various other domestic surveillance programs beyond those first disclosed by the New York Times, similarly intimating the domestic flyovers are more subversive than simply being used for weather catastrophes.

"In 2003, the NGA was formally inaugurated as a combat support agency of the Pentagon," he reveals. "It is responsible for supplying overhead imagery and mapping tools to the military, the CIA and other intelligence agencies -- including the National Security Agency, whose wide-reaching, extrajudicial spying inside the United States under the Bush administration has been a heated political issue since first coming to light in the media nearly two years ago."


more

[havocmom]

1. One nation, under political/corporate surveillance, indivisible,

with no privacy or liberty for any.


Somebody please explain to me why any slower, lower aircraft could not have given them data on what problems that storm was creating?

And bush was off eating cake, so just who sent the U2?

Who
Who
Who sent the U2 to fly over Americans?

What kinda dick would feel it is necessary to fly U2s over America?

[Richard Steele]

2. K&R

[rudy23]

3. I'm telling you, New Orleans is practice for bigger things

There's no other logical explanation for it. When you've got military riding tanks down the street yelling at US citizens to get down or they'll shoot, that's the martial law experiment getting a dry run. The rest of the country wonders "what if" they declare martial law--as if they haven't already done it here!

[loudsue]

5. That was apparent to many of us, as well. We saw what they did.

It was pretty disgusting, and nobody has ever had to answer for it.

:kick:

[EVDebs]

4. Ever since Operation CHAOS domestic spying ops blowback have always been bad

for the agencies involved. In fact, Dr MLK Jr's spying by the military was far worse than the FBI's. The current batch of domestic spying ops have rounded up what, the Ragin' Grannies, some UC Santa Cruz protesters, Green Party members trying to board aircraft (gasp !) along with Ted Kennedy and a few toddlers with the 'wrong names' if you know what I mean.

If this current six month experiment in extra-Constitutional government is allowed to continue, who knows what other liberals will be harassed and tormented by our 'intelligence' community ?

The proof is in the pudding and the results of this domestic spying better be good. Or else. But the harassment stuff, like the wrongful renditions overseas, make the news dontcha know. The over-reaching b.s. always is worse than the stuff they're aiming for, as if it were on purpose (which is may be).

IMHO, the FISA Court is now of NO VALUE whatsoever. Why don't these guys just walk out en bank/enmasse and be done with the charade ? Or if they have any sense at all why don't THEY sue the Bush administration, which makes more sense.

[yella_dawg]

6. Shit

I spent three years developing data management and countermeasures systems for the U2. The Dragonlady can tell what brand of underwear you're wearing.

My whole counter-argument against Iraq WMD revolves around the fact that we had an inventory of Saddam's costume jewelry and schematics on how he laced his boots.

The major question is why go to so much trouble when an Army chopper could pop by for a look?

[EVDebs]

7. In 1960 Dulles probably arranged for Gary Power's U2 to be 'shot down'

by short-fuelling the aircraft. Read Fletcher Prouty's version of it

THE SABOTAGING OF THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY
by L. Fletcher Prouty
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/SAP.html

"If Eisenhower did not order the flight, who did? If Dulles didn't know whether the men whom he said authorized the flight had that authority, who knew? If someone had the inside knowledge to get away with launching an unauthorized flight, who was it? And if those people knew that the cameras must be protected, who were they? By the time you answer those questions, even by the time you ask them, you can draw the strings tightly around that very small group who actually did operate the U-2's in 1960. There were only three or four men able to do those things, and their names are in the Pentagon telephone book of 1960. I will not name names as it is not my intention to jeopardize these men's lives."...

"The flame-out is simply a logical explanation for Powers' descent from his invulnerable 80,000-foot perch. And, it is consistent with Eisenhower's and Dulles' statements."

This program was abused in the '60s therefore, what praytell will prevent its abuse today ? The truth ALWAYS comes out.

[jmowreader]

28. This has a critical problem

Namely, the SA-2 GUIDELINE missile can shoot down a U-2 at altitude; that's what it's made to do.

Maximum slant range is 31 miles; combat ceiling is 80,000 feet.

[nashville_brook]

9. what do you think they are interested in seeing? any idea?

it's not public health. it's not anything for "the public good," that's for sure.

is it a dry run? are there monied interests in NO that the bushies want to surveil? drugs? what the fuck could be so interesting to them?

[EVDebs]

10. Watch your TV schedules for Enemy of the State starring Will Smith

The freepers will get Men In Black on their channels.

[EVDebs]

11. Cracks in dams ? Really, why send 'em up when they've blown billions on satellites ?

Further impeachable offense, as during Nixon's list, is a further abuse of federal agencies.

Article 1 #6

http://watergate.info/impeachment/impeachment-articles.shtml

Maybe to waste aviation fuel in order to up the cost ? Nuts !-- Gen McAulliffe.

[yella_dawg]

13. I have to think it's something moderately innocent.

Using the U2 for covert missions inside the US is like swatting flies with a four-pound hammer. Maybe they're streamlining the process for spotting unauthorized Pot fields?

The whole thing is weird.

[EVDebs]

18. Get real, the Bush's doing something to WIN the War on Drugs ? c'mon

[yella_dawg]

20. Not "fighting" the war on drugs.

Shutting down competitors.

Lots of covert stuff to fund all over the world these days. Can't have Joe Pothead cutting into the profits by planting an acre or two.

[nashville_brook]

21. see my post below about the Salon ltte --

I would like to point out a recent event which shines another light onto these enhanced powers of surveillance. John Walters, the drug czar and mouthpiece for the Bush administration in the war on drugs, recently made the claim at a press conference in reference to raids this summer on pot gardens in Northern California that "the people who plant and tend the gardens are terrorists who wouldn't hesitate to help other terrorists get into the country with the aim of causing mass casualties."

Apparently we have our own homegrown al-Qaeda right here in California. Who would have guessed? They're out there, driving VW buses around, munching veggie burritos, getting ready for harvest season when they will unleash the fury of White Widow and Northern Lights onto our college campuses, funneling the profits back to their overseers in Iran, no doubt.

[EVDebs]

25. Garberville = Waziristan ? WTF ?

[EVDebs]

12. Iran, and a possible 'shoot down' a la Dulles' 1960 perhaps ?

History has a strange way of repeating itself and these idiots need another pretext for ....

[yella_dawg]

14. A shoot-down over Little Rock?

Doesn't make sense. This has to be some Neocon playing with the swell new toys being undersecretary of something-or-other gives him.

[EVDebs]

15. No, over Iran. They need to start a dustup over the nuke sites in Iran

They don't even need to do this over the US with their satellites but, hey, the old planes have spam-in-a-can humans aboard and they make excellent human interest stories, like Gary Powers, when they're shot down and used politically.

[yella_dawg]

19. Huh?

The topic is U2 surveillance of the US.

On the other hand, the modern U2 is very hard to shoot down. Lots of better ways to pin blame on Iran than giving them credit for touching the untouchable.

[CTyankee]

22. Do the U2's still land on their belly? I read that in "The Missile Crisis"

and was amazed that the thing didn't have landing gear. I'm surprised we still use them, updated tho they may be since the early 60s.

It seems that Kruschev was blown away by the fact that we had such detailed photos, a technology the Soviet Union did not have. So was DeGaulle when he saw them ("C'est formidable!")altho at first he didn't care to see them, saying "A great government such as yours does not act without evidence." Those were the days!

[jmowreader]

23. Just about, yeah

The wings on a U2 are too small to hold landing gear, and the fuselage is too full of other stuff (like the engine) to hold very much in the way of landing gear, so all the U2 really has for "landing gear" is two tires, one at the front of the fuselage, one at the back.

Here's a neat little article (written by a U-2 driver) on flying this thing: http://www.blackbirds.net/u2/u-2mission.html

[CTyankee]

24. A great article, thanks. I guess I assumed that with the advent of satellite

surveillance, we no longer needed the U2s. You don't hear much about them. Are you a pilot or a military historian?

[jmowreader]

26. I'm an old spook

You don't hear too much about U-2s because they're kinda boring. It flies real slow and real quiet and does secret things, so unless someone goes out and gets shot down in one or drives it into the ground it's not all that newsworthy of a plane. SR-71s are fun because they go like hell.

I never really liked satellite surveillance because they move away from your target too fast. There are plenty of people who make their coin with satellites, who totally believe in them, but they do long-term stuff. A satellite is great if you want to gauge the progress of the bad guys building a barracks, but if you want to watch the bad guys running out of it, jumping into their tanks and rushing off to meet The Enemy, satellite will do you no favors.

[unhappycamper]

31. No, I'm not.

I have a curiosity about *many* things.

[nashville_brook]

8. no mention of how the imagery is being used in New Orleans -- WTF are they looking for/at?

to "track hazards to public health." well, how? you don't need spy planes to tell you the wetlands that used to protect LA are gone. it's not like the US government gives a shit about people in new orleans -- what the fuck are they looking for??

[jmowreader]

27. They're checking for building code violations

You know, things like people building working-class houses in areas Bush rezoned "casino only." Which would be most of Louisiana.

[nashville_brook]

16. ltte on the Salon article makes a GREAT point -- "What is terrorism?" (hint: drug war)

http://letters.salon.com/news/feature/2007/08/09/domestic_surveillance/view/?show=all

I would like to point out a recent event which shines another light onto these enhanced powers of surveillance. John Walters, the drug czar and mouthpiece for the Bush administration in the war on drugs, recently made the claim at a press conference in reference to raids this summer on pot gardens in Northern California that "the people who plant and tend the gardens are terrorists who wouldn't hesitate to help other terrorists get into the country with the aim of causing mass casualties."

Apparently we have our own homegrown al-Qaeda right here in California. Who would have guessed? They're out there, driving VW buses around, munching veggie burritos, getting ready for harvest season when they will unleash the fury of White Widow and Northern Lights onto our college campuses, funneling the profits back to their overseers in Iran, no doubt.

[RexDart]

17. Been done before.

The book is at home, so I don't have all the details, but 2 B-58 bombers flew a recon mission to view damage after the 1964 Alaskan earthquake. Nothing too dark, they were the quickest way to get there and back. I seem to remember reading that the photos were in Washington DC within 18 hours after the quake.

Reading the Salon story, the point seems to be that this was the first time that a spy agency was used to collect information on US soil. Although the paragraph before says that it was after 9/11. I guess the main problem is the asshat in the White House. I have no trust anymore. But in this case, a day or so after Katrina hit a recon plane did a fly over for damage assessment. In a way, I'm glad they did. There's no reason for it now, of course. In my mind, the real crime in the story is that, even though they had up to the minute info, they dropped the ball on it.

[eagler]

29. Why can't they find Osama?

[Demeter]

30. Eyes Wide Shut