Spy Agency Charter Lost in Space

Spy Agency Charter Lost in Space

By Colin Clark Tuesday, January 19th, 2010 6:09 pm
Posted in Intelligence, Policy, Space

The proposed new charter for the nation’s spy satellite builder, the National Reconnaissance Office, is stuck in the Department of Defense’s general counsel’s office. The lawyers are apparently worried that the new charter may expand the agency’s powers into areas governed by the military services.

Information on all this is extremely close hold but we have heard variations on this from two very well informed sources. One phrase in the statement of principles that guides the charter appears to be the issue: “overhead reconnaissance systems.”

That is the key phrase in a document, called the statement of principles. It lays out eight core ideas meant to guide the NRO. The statement is meant to be the foundation for the new NRO charter, which most intelligence community and Pentagon officials feel strongly must be updated. The new charter mark the first major changes to the NRO’s guiding documents since 1965, four years after then-​​Defense Secretary Robert McNamara created the NRO and drafted its charter. The NRO is led by former Air Force Gen. Bruce Carlson.


The phrase at issue could be interpreted to include Air Force systems and thus give the spy agency powers it currently does not possess. That worries military space advocates. They believe it could allow the NRO to take budgetary and programmatic control over some systems currently controlled by the military services, especially the Air Force.

In early December, Carlson said he was confident the statement of principles would be approved soon, clearing the way for the new charter’s approval. The new charter will be very short, perhaps a page or two. But to give you some idea of just how high the stakes are, one military space advocate said the delays suit him just fine. He just hopes “it goes on for a few more years.”

An intelligence official offered an arch comment, saying folks in the community did not see any issues with the wording of the statement of principles. It may be, “telling that all the senior folks who actually deal with our work have not seen that wording an issue but a lawyer does.”

An

Join the Conversation

Byron Skinner January 19th, 2010 at 10:16 pm

Good Evening Colin,

It’s business as usual for the uniformed services. I wonder what happened to inter agency cooperation on intelligence? From a procurement point of view what is the status of that $10 billion ISR satellite order that went from the AF when Sec. Gates canceled it for the Dod and it was transfered to the NRO last Spring when the FCS tanked?

Also a heads up on the movement of the 86th. Signal Battalion from Ft. Huachuca Az. to Ft. Bliss. The 86th. Signal appears to be the unit that will fly and control the MQ-1-C’s “Warrior’s” in Afghanistan.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

DensityDuck January 20th, 2010 at 7:35 pm

Seems to me that one of the biggest problems is that NRO’s security charter makes it difficult for NRO intel to be disseminated in a tactially-useful manner.

“They believe it could allow the NRO to take budgetary and programmatic control over some systems currently controlled by the military services, especially the Air Force.”

Which would actually not be a bad idea, because the USAF’s insistence on space control is entirely a political matter. Their attitude is that if you are not touching the ground then you damn well better have a USAF sticker on the side. But the USAF doesn’t actually want to do anything with satellites–there’s no pilots and they don’t shoot missiles, so they’re oh-for-two in USAF reckoning.

Phoenix January 21st, 2010 at 3:20 pm

Time is a wasting, taxpayers paying, and warriors waiting.….just what we need while a bunch of lawyers and senior bureaucrats “fiddle while Rome burns”. Need to have the same evolutionary revolt in and with all of them like Massachuetts did. It is time for a fundamental and drastic change.

anton January 21st, 2010 at 5:42 pm

It proved spending taxpayers money for war..All that secrecy brought us all in a conflict we and the world will never get out ofit brought us to Irak…Afgan,other countries will follow all this secrecy..

Goof Ball January 21st, 2010 at 10:22 pm

Not to worry! The Taliban is happy to wait for the pinheads to sort out this nit.

Greg January 23rd, 2010 at 6:03 am

Has anyone surfed over to this new blog from a couple of security students at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy? Its not bad — http://​demagoguesanddictators​.blogspot​.com

Phoenix January 25th, 2010 at 1:23 pm

If the security students at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy opinions are what you have referred us to, those are as beneficial as the idea the administration has of negoitating a deal with Iran. Those individuals who still have a brain and can read history know the only way to deal with those who do not value life is offer than the alternative. Most of the posting on the site Greg referred readers to portray a bunch of opinions documented in a fashion to make me wonder what it is I’m paying for in sending my children for an advanced education.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement