Slashdot Mirror


Spy Satellite Photos Used To Fight Drug Smugglers

Hugh Pickens writes "The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, part of the Department of Defense, is using satellites to track the activities of drug cartels operating along the US-Mexican border. The agency is supplying photos to pinpoint Mexican narcotics operations and anticipate smuggling attempts into the United States. During a conference on border security held in Phoenix last week, Scott Zikmanis said his agency already has supplied some data to the El Paso Intelligence Center, a federal clearinghouse for investigating drug cartels. Any border-security surveillance will be done over Mexico, not the US says Zikmanis because a federal law, the Posse Comitatus Act, strictly limits US military operations on American soil unless such operations are authorized by Congress. Civil rights attorneys question the use of satellite technology in law enforcement. 'We are in the midst of a really dangerous time in terms of technology,' said Chris Calabrese, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union. 'The idea that such a powerful tool might be turned on US citizens is really troubling.'"

9 of 381 comments (clear)

  1. Re:query: by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 2, Informative

    Once you get above the magic 100 km marker, its all international space.

    Originally, when Sputnik flew over what might have been considered US airspace, the Eisenhower administration intelligently agreed that it was legal and valid... otherwise you couldn't have any kind of orbit that wasn't geostationary.

  2. Re:Military required? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Because we'd have even more poor people to deal with?

  3. Re:Well by dave562 · · Score: 2, Informative

    The LA Times has been on it much longer than CNN and Fox have.

    http://projects.latimes.com/mexico-drug-war/#/its-a-war

  4. Re:Military required? by Xoltri · · Score: 3, Informative

    Next, legalize opium... I mean, if people can grow it themselves, why buy from Arif the Taliban drug thug?

    For suggested reading I would recommend The Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit drugs http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/LIBRARY/studies/cu/cumenu.htm . It's free online. It details how prohibition got us from relatively harmless opium to the dangerous drugs such as heroin.

    --
    -Xoltri
  5. Re:pcp? meth? by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Informative

    PCP is a disassociative and is not habit forming. The only folks who claim it is claim MJ is addictive.

    That you cannot use some drugs and walk away is again bullshit. No one gets addicted in one use, that takes time and effort. You have been believing to much propaganda.

    If you do not have the freedom to decide what chemicals you can consume you are not very free.

  6. Re:Military required? by publiclurker · · Score: 2, Informative

    Easy, Guatemala and Belize are south of Mexico just waiting to be the new scapegoats.

  7. Re:Military required? by Petskull · · Score: 2, Informative

    'Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do' by Peter McWilliams covers the effects of legalizing drugs in great detail. It also covers the social ramifications of legislating victimless crimes. http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/books/aint/303a.htm

  8. Re:Military required? by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 5, Informative

    If only there was some country that had already experimented with this... Oh wait. There is.

    In 2001 Portugal did just this. They decriminalized everything. and 7 years later it's working better than imagined.

    Everyone caught using is suggested to go to a class (but it's not required.). Sure they're a bit smaller than the US, but there's no reason it couldn't work here.

  9. Re:alcohol isn't nrealy addictive as meth by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_(mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence).svg

    moron:

    alcohol isn't nearly addictive as meth

    its a simple pharmacological fact

    so there's a legal difference

    does that radical concept have any meaning to you?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it