Bush Seeks to Block Enemies From Space
By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent
2 hours ago

WASHINGTON - President Bush has signed an order asserting the United States'
right to deny adversaries access to space for hostile purposes.

Bush also said the United States would oppose the development of treaties or
other restrictions that seek to prohibit or limit U.S. access to or use of
space.

The provisions were contained in the first revision of U.S. space policy in
nearly 10 years. Bush's order, signed more than a month ago, was not
publicly announced although unclassified details of his decision were posted
on the Web site of the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

"Freedom of action in space is as important to the United States as air
power and sea power," the policy says. "In order to increase knowledge,
discovery, economic prosperity, and to enhance the national security, the
United States must have robust, effective, and efficient space
capabilities."

The policy says that space systems should have rights of passage without
interference, and that the United States would view any deliberate
interference with its space systems as an infringement on its rights.

"The United States considers space capabilities -- including the ground and
space segments and supporting links -- vital to its national interests," the
policy said.

"Consistent with this policy, the United States will: preserve its rights,
capabilities, and freedom of action in space; dissuade or deter others from
either impeding those rights or developing capabilities intended to do so;
take those actions necessary to protect its space capabilities; respond to
interference; and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space
capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests."

The White House said the policy does not call for the development or
deployment of weapons in space.

"This policy emphasizes that the United States is committed to peaceful uses
of space by all nations and that space systems enjoy the right of free
passage," National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones said.

He said the United States maintains the right of self-defense and the
protection of its interests and assets in space.

"Protection of space assets does not imply some sort of forceful action," he
said. "There is a broad range of ways to protect our space capabilities"
such as system hardening, encryption, maneuvering and other methods.

"The new policy is consistent with previous national space policies in this
regard," he said.

Jones said the challenges and threats facing the United States have changed
in the decade since the space policy was last updated.

"Technology advances have increased the importance of and use of space," he
said. "Now,, we depend on space capabilities for things like: ATMs, personal
navigation, package tracking, radio services, and cell phone use."

The new policy was first reported by The Washington Post.

___

On the Net:

Office of Science and Space Technology: http://www.ostp.gov/

And, he won't really have to worry about the Democrats taking over
Congress...

http://www.crisispapers.org/

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Gilligan" wrote in message
. ..
Bush Seeks to Block Enemies From Space
By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent
2 hours ago

WASHINGTON - President Bush has signed an order asserting the United
States' right to deny adversaries access to space for hostile purposes.

Bush also said the United States would oppose the development of treaties
or other restrictions that seek to prohibit or limit U.S. access to or use
of space.

The provisions were contained in the first revision of U.S. space policy
in nearly 10 years. Bush's order, signed more than a month ago, was not
publicly announced although unclassified details of his decision were
posted on the Web site of the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

"Freedom of action in space is as important to the United States as air
power and sea power," the policy says. "In order to increase knowledge,
discovery, economic prosperity, and to enhance the national security, the
United States must have robust, effective, and efficient space
capabilities."

The policy says that space systems should have rights of passage without
interference, and that the United States would view any deliberate
interference with its space systems as an infringement on its rights.

"The United States considers space capabilities -- including the ground
and space segments and supporting links -- vital to its national
interests," the policy said.

"Consistent with this policy, the United States will: preserve its rights,
capabilities, and freedom of action in space; dissuade or deter others
from either impeding those rights or developing capabilities intended to
do so; take those actions necessary to protect its space capabilities;
respond to interference; and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of
space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests."

The White House said the policy does not call for the development or
deployment of weapons in space.

"This policy emphasizes that the United States is committed to peaceful
uses of space by all nations and that space systems enjoy the right of
free passage," National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones said.

He said the United States maintains the right of self-defense and the
protection of its interests and assets in space.

"Protection of space assets does not imply some sort of forceful action,"
he said. "There is a broad range of ways to protect our space
capabilities" such as system hardening, encryption, maneuvering and other
methods.

"The new policy is consistent with previous national space policies in
this regard," he said.

Jones said the challenges and threats facing the United States have
changed in the decade since the space policy was last updated.

"Technology advances have increased the importance of and use of space,"
he said. "Now,, we depend on space capabilities for things like: ATMs,
personal navigation, package tracking, radio services, and cell phone
use."

The new policy was first reported by The Washington Post.

___

On the Net:

Office of Science and Space Technology: http://www.ostp.gov/

Not if you listen to the kooks. The liberals are already
planning the fallback strategy for the case in which they
don't win back the house--calling it election fraud.

Heck, the election hasn't even happened yet. How can
Ernest Partridge cite fraud?

Let me ask you this. What does it mean if the
Democrats don't win back the house?

I'll tell you. It means the majority of American's don't
want a party that has no plan, and nothing offer
except bashing the other side.

The Democrats don't have a policy on Immigration,
except amnesty, don't have a plan for the war, except
run and hide like the French.

"It's not that Liberals are ignorant, it's just they know so
much that isn't so" - Ronald Reagan

Capt. JG wrote:
And, he won't really have to worry about the Democrats taking over
Congress...

http://www.crisispapers.org/

I think you should have your congressman introduce an amendment to the
constitution changing the phrases French Fries and French Toast to Freedom
Fries and Freedom Toast. I'm sure that's the level of sophistication
appropriate to the right-wingnuts and 49-51 percent of the voting public, if
you couch it in terms of the war on terror. So far as I can tell, that's the
kind of planning and execution the right-wingnuts are good at. Perhaps you
can also have him add a rider removing Habeas Corpus. Oh wait, that already
happened.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Bart" wrote in message
oups.com...
Not if you listen to the kooks. The liberals are already
planning the fallback strategy for the case in which they
don't win back the house--calling it election fraud.

Heck, the election hasn't even happened yet. How can
Ernest Partridge cite fraud?

Let me ask you this. What does it mean if the
Democrats don't win back the house?

I'll tell you. It means the majority of American's don't
want a party that has no plan, and nothing offer
except bashing the other side.

The Democrats don't have a policy on Immigration,
except amnesty, don't have a plan for the war, except
run and hide like the French.

"It's not that Liberals are ignorant, it's just they know so
much that isn't so" - Ronald Reagan

Capt. JG wrote:
And, he won't really have to worry about the Democrats taking over
Congress...

http://www.crisispapers.org/

Capt. JG wrote:
I think you should have your congressman introduce an amendment to the
constitution changing the phrases French Fries and French Toast to Freedom
Fries and Freedom Toast. I'm sure that's the level of sophistication
appropriate to the right-wingnuts and 49-51 percent of the voting public, if
you couch it in terms of the war on terror. So far as I can tell, that's the
kind of planning and execution the right-wingnuts are good at. Perhaps you
can also have him add a rider removing Habeas Corpus. Oh wait, that already
happened.


Jon,
Did it ever occur to you that intolerance is intolerance, whether it be
on the right side of the fence or on the left side? Meeting somewhere
in the middle is usually the way to keep good neighbors and harmony
where slinging mud pies across the fence line usually just irritates the
other party to the point where they won't listen anymore. You of all
people should know that whatever Gilly responds to, and the way he
responds, is to evoke a reaction or to make one think. I think this has
slipped you by this time.

I was responding to Bart, who is a friend of mine.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"katy" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
I think you should have your congressman introduce an amendment to the
constitution changing the phrases French Fries and French Toast to
Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast. I'm sure that's the level of
sophistication appropriate to the right-wingnuts and 49-51 percent of the
voting public, if you couch it in terms of the war on terror. So far as I
can tell, that's the kind of planning and execution the right-wingnuts
are good at. Perhaps you can also have him add a rider removing Habeas
Corpus. Oh wait, that already happened.


Jon,
Did it ever occur to you that intolerance is intolerance, whether it be on
the right side of the fence or on the left side? Meeting somewhere in the
middle is usually the way to keep good neighbors and harmony where
slinging mud pies across the fence line usually just irritates the other
party to the point where they won't listen anymore. You of all people
should know that whatever Gilly responds to, and the way he responds, is
to evoke a reaction or to make one think. I think this has slipped you by
this time.

Damn, I need to turn off the webcam next time.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 14:56:22 -0400, katy said:

You of all
people should know that whatever Gilly responds to, and the way he
responds, is to evoke a reaction or to make one think. I think this has
slipped you by this time.

No reason to be surprised. Any mention of the names "Bush" or "Rove" is
guaranteed to start Jon foaming at the mouth.

Capt. JG wrote:
I was responding to Bart, who is a friend of mine.

I was addressing your replies in general..not just specifically that
one...you're becoming strident. Screaming at people never changes them.

I didn't use all caps... that's screaming on usenet. I think I'm pretty tame
comparitively. grrrrrrr :-)

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"katy" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
I was responding to Bart, who is a friend of mine.

I was addressing your replies in general..not just specifically that
one...you're becoming strident. Screaming at people never changes them.

"Capt. JG" wrote
...
I didn't use all caps... that's screaming on usenet. I
think I'm pretty Lame
comparitively. grrrrrrr :-)


that's what Mooron's been trying to tell you.