You would think that images of Iran would be permitted, if only to to show the awesome might of the USA and how much they're just about to win/winning/already won etc.
If power plants and bridges are targeted, would imagery of that be released “on a case-by-case basis for urgent, mission-critical requirements or in the public interest?” Is there any recourse for the media to seek an exemption?
If a hedge fund bought an earth imagery provider and traded on imagery they are “requested” not to release, is that insider trading?
If there is one term that has lost its value over the last three decades it is 'national security'. That gets trotted out for any number of reasons, the easiest and in my opinion most accurate interpretation is that it stands in for 'our desire to do this'.
It is now - the entire cowards punch attack during negotiations and beating down on civilian infrastructure business is rapidly eroding away the dregs of any remaining soft power and respect held by the USofA.
Not all satellite providers are onboard w/ US Gov's wishes here. MizarVision continues to output war-related satellite intelligence.
https://www.kyivpost.com/post/73270
https://xcancel.com/MizarVision
You would think that images of Iran would be permitted, if only to to show the awesome might of the USA and how much they're just about to win/winning/already won etc.
They’re probably concerned about political blowback once civilian centers and infrastructure starts getting leveled.
If power plants and bridges are targeted, would imagery of that be released “on a case-by-case basis for urgent, mission-critical requirements or in the public interest?” Is there any recourse for the media to seek an exemption?
If a hedge fund bought an earth imagery provider and traded on imagery they are “requested” not to release, is that insider trading?
Why?
The military has access. Their government doesnt want the world seeing what they are doing. The are forced to blank it off for national security.
If there is one term that has lost its value over the last three decades it is 'national security'. That gets trotted out for any number of reasons, the easiest and in my opinion most accurate interpretation is that it stands in for 'our desire to do this'.
Iran is not a threat to our national security.
It is now - the entire cowards punch attack during negotiations and beating down on civilian infrastructure business is rapidly eroding away the dregs of any remaining soft power and respect held by the USofA.
Who is the "insider" here?