blimps to protect and pry?

[Fritz]

U.S. Navy See Blimps As Anti-Terror Tool

By JENNIFER C. KERR
Associated Press Writer


MANASSAS, Va. (AP)--The military is looking to something old as a new weapon in the war on terrorism: blimps.

The blimps wouldn't be like those that hover over football stadiums and concerts. These would be equipped with cutting-edge sensors and high-resolution cameras that could scour the landscape or oceans.

Think of it as a 200-foot-long eye in the sky.

The Office of Naval Research is working with Honolulu-based Science & Technology International to develop the idea.

From thousands of feet up, STI's advanced optical sensor system can spot targets on the ground or deep under water and then track their movements, said Stephen Huett, ONR's project manager for the program.

Huett envisions the blimps policing U.S. harbors to pinpoint terrorist divers, suspicious boats or other unusual activity. They also could provide increased surveillance at military bases or assist with border patrols, he said.

The helium-filled airships have a number of advantages over planes or helicopters. They're quiet and smooth-riding, which is important for those monitoring the high-tech equipment inside. They're also about 30 percent cheaper to operate and can hover over a target anywhere from 12 hours to three days, Huett said.

The Navy contract is worth about $4 million, according to Huett.

Civil libertarians expressed concern that the blimps will be another government tool that infringes on privacy.

``What is increasingly happening is people are coming under routine surveillance without good cause,'' said Barry Steinhardt, director of the technology and liberty program at the American Civil Liberties Union. ``It's no longer fanciful to talk about a '1984'-like society.''

An intelligence policy specialist at the Federation of American Scientists, Steven Aftergood, said, ``People are going to behave differently even in their own back yards if they know that someone may be watching.''

Michael Greenberger, a law professor and director of the University of Maryland Center for Health and Homeland Security, said blimps could be an important addition to homeland defense.

``This is not a substantial infringement and is something that would be helpful,'' said Greenberger, who worked in counterterrorism for the Justice Department during the Clinton administration.

Blimps have been used by the military before, including for anti-submarine patrols during World War II.

STI's blimp can travel up to 60 mph and fly at an altitude of about 2,000-3,000 feet--out of reach of small arms fire, Huett said.

While they might seem like large targets that aren't very stealthy, Huett said the blimps don't plummet from the sky if punctured by gunfire.

``It's like attacking an elephant with a fork. It's not easy to bring down,'' he said.

STI provided media demonstrations of the sensor technology as well as blimp rides this week in Manassas, Va. However, the 200-foot white blimp with a green and blue STI logo was grounded for at least two days because of mechanical problems.

The company's sensor technology is mounted in a 30-foot gondola, where the six-person crew--including two pilots--would sit during a surveillance mission.

From Virginia, the blimp will head to San Diego for a four-month testing period.

http://www.news-journal.com/news/con...-Feeding-.html

[Buccaneer]

The masses want it both ways: they want us to catch the bad guys before they do anything bad but they also don't want to know what the bad guys are doing before they do anything bad. Since we can only react to crime what measures of preventativeness should we take? We want to be protected but still maintain civil liberties. But what would prevent those who are violated from claiming that they/we should have been better protected in hindsight?

[Fritz]

aren't you part of the masses?

[Bee]

Originally posted by Fritz
aren't you part of the masses?

Not as large a part as you or I.

[Buccaneer]

But not part of the massed sheeps that nodded their collective heads in claiming - in hindsight - that we should have picked out the exact pieces of puzzles from intelligence data in preventing 9/11.

[Easy Mac]

no, your one of the massed sheep claiming we need to take away things we as a nation have worked for over the past 200 years because of a singular event in our history.

[Buccaneer]

Tell that to the Southern sympathizers jailed under Lincoln's habeas corpus.

I'm just throwing out thoughts in a devil's advocate mode. But I do react to those claiming civil liberties (as if they really know what that means) but wanted to jail potential terrorists before they strike so we could have prevented 9/11 or any future attacks. There is a fine line that must be walked, I think.

[EagleFan]

If you're not doing anything wrong...

[cuervo72]

Originally posted by EagleFan
If you're not doing anything wrong...

Howabout nude sunbathing?

[EagleFan]

For some people, nude sun bathing should be a punishable offense.

[Easy Mac]

Eaglefan, a man who obviously speaks from experience

[WussGawd]

Originally posted by EagleFan
If you're not doing anything wrong...

Right. I'm sure the Germans reminded themselves of this adage every time the Gestapo hauled off one of their neighbors during the night.

Pardon me if I'm not enthusiastic about Donald "Mad Bomber" Rumsfeld, or John "Law and Odor" Ashcroft deciding whether I've done something wrong.

[Fritz]

12 posts before the Nazis were brought up

[mrsimperless]

Yeah, the Nazis had pieces of flare too!

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Fritz
12 posts before the Nazis were brought up

Who had the over?

[WussGawd]

My real point is that none of the proposals coming out of this very scary administration really does much to increase our security:

How does datamining through ordinary people's medical/credit/bank/purchase records make us more secure?

How does flying sig/int blimps over Boise, Idaho, and other cities in the US make us secure from men who trained in Afghanistan and who already showed, with 9/11, the ability to coordinate and plan large attacks without the need of a single resource that a stupid blimp is going to pick up anyway?

How does granting the FBI widespread wiretapping access make us more secure?

How does holding American citizens without charging them make us more secure?

Truth is, the information to potentially stop 9/11 from happening was there, without the Reichstag Fire, er, PATRIOT Act. Nonetheless, I don't fault the administration or FBI much for it. Who could have conceived on September 10 that 20 Middle Eastern nutjobs were going to convert jumbo jets into flying missiles? The mindset was different. But does that mean that I am concerned about widespread executive abuses of our constitutiona rights. You bet I am.

This isn't an either/or argument. The facts are that this administration is treating the Bill of Rights like a punchline, and I feel less secure by the day, and it has little to do with Osama Bin Laden's minions. For you see, I grew up during the last years of the Nixon administration. I've seen and heard about what can happen when an administration starts to justify morally questionable actions in the name of "National Security." I've seen what can happen when the media, judiciary and legislature abdicate their responsibilities to check a President, and frankly, I'm quite concerned we're heading down that road again and that we're a lot further down that road already than anybody wants to believe.