SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2006, Issue No. 75
July 5, 2006

Secrecy News Blog: http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/


** LAW AND THE MILITARY
** U.S. MARINE CORPS ON COUNTERINSURGENCY
** CONTROLLING STRESS IN COMBAT, AND MORE
** FOIA AT FORTY


LAW AND THE MILITARY

With its decision last week to strike down the Bush
Administration's unilateral creation of military tribunals for
trying detainees, the Supreme Court highlighted and reinforced
the rule of law in the conduct of military operations.

Several recent publications provide rich background on military
law.

The 2006 edition of the "Operational Law Handbook" published by
the Army Judge Advocate General is "a 'how to' guide for Judge
Advocates practicing operational law. It provides references and
describes tactics and techniques for the practice of operational
law."

The Handbook covers the gamut of issues that arise in the field,
from the Law of War to intelligence-related law to detainee
operations.

See "Operational Law Handbook (2006)," Judge Advocate General's
Legal Center and School (598 pages, 3.7 MB):

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/law2006.pdf

U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and the "war on
terrorism" have raised a variety of novel legal issues,
according to a 2004 study performed for the Army on "legal
lessons learned."

"Whether determining the applicability of the law of armed
conflict to non-state terrorist actors, applying traditional and
new fiscal authorities to a military occupation, or assisting in
the development of rules of engagement (ROE) for an enemy that
blended into civilian populations, JAs [judge advocates] and
paralegals wrestled with cutting-edge legal issues during OEF
[Operation Enduring Freedom] and OIF [Operation Iraqi Freedom]."

See "Legal Lessons Learned From Afghanistan and Iraq: Volume 1,
Major Combat Operations," Center for Law and Military
Operations, 1 August 2004 (454 pages, 7.1 MB PDF):

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/clamo-v1.pdf

Volume 2 of that study has recently been made public.

See "Legal Lessons Learned From Afghanistan and Iraq: Volume 2,
Full Spectrum Operations," Center for Law and Military
Operations, September 2005 (368 pages, 3.3 MB PDF):

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/clamo-v2.pdf

Secrecy News is honored to be a recipient of the 2006 Public
Access to Government Information award from the American
Association of Law Libraries.

http://www.aallnet.org/press/ftdo_claire_germain_061906.asp


U.S. MARINE CORPS ON COUNTERINSURGENCY

The Marine Corps has recently published a series of documents on
counterinsurgency:

"Small-Unit Leaders' Guide to Counterinsurgency," June 2006 (4.7
MB PDF file):

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/usmc/coin.pdf

"Countering Irregular Threats: A Comprehensive Approach," 14 June
2006 (3.2 MB PDF file):

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/usmc/irreg.pdf

"Tentative Manual for Countering Irregular Threats: An Updated
Approach to Counterinsurgency Operations," 7 June 2006:

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/usmc/manual.pdf


CONTROLLING STRESS IN COMBAT, AND MORE

Military doctrine on the control of the stress in combat is
presented in a new Army field manual.

"In our own Soldiers and in the enemy combatants, control of
stress is often the decisive difference between victory and
defeat across the operational continuum. Battles and wars are
won more by controlling the will to fight than by killing all of
the enemy combatants. Uncontrolled combat stress causes erratic
or harmful behaviors, impairs mission performance, and may
result in disaster...."

See "Combat and Operational Stress Control," U.S. Army Field
Manual 4-02.51, July 2006:

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm4-02-51.pdf

A recent Congressional Research Service report "presents
difficult-to-find statistics regarding U.S. military casualties
in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom
(OEF, Afghanistan), including those concerning medical
evacuations, amputations, and the demographics of casualties."

"Some of these statistics are publically available at the
Department of Defense's (DOD's) website, while others have been
obtained through contact with experts at DOD."

See "United States Military Casualty Statistics: Operation Iraqi
Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom," June 8, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22452.pdf

"Medical Program Support for Detainee Operations" is the subject
of Department of Defense Instruction 2310.08E, issued June 6,
2006:

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/i2310_08.pdf


FOIA AT FORTY

The fortieth anniversary of the Freedom of Information Act,
signed into law by President Johnson on July 4, 1966, was marked
with the release of several interesting and informative
publications.

The colorful and contentious history behind the adoption of the
Act was described by Tom Blanton of the National Security
Archive based on documents obtained from the Johnson Library.
See "Freedom of Information at 40":

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB194/index.htm

The legislative history of the Freedom of Information Act is
newly available from the National Security Archive here:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/foialeghi.../legistfoia.htm

The FOIA improvement plans that were recently developed by
executive branch agencies were critically assessed by
OpenTheGovernment.org in a new report. See "FOIA's 40th
Anniversary: Agencies Respond to the President's Call for
Improved Disclosure of Information":

http://www.openthegovernment.org/

"The federal government continues to fall further behind in
getting information to people seeking public records under the
Freedom of Information Act," according to a study by the
Coalition of Journalists for Open Government:

http://www.cjog.net/documents/.pdf

"By far the heaviest use of the Freedom of Information Act comes
from the nation's businesses, seeking government records on
contracts or for a host of other commercial uses," another
Coalition report found:

http://www.cjog.net/documents/Who_Uses_FOIA2.pdf

Sixty-eight countries now have freedom of information statutes,
according to an updated survey by David Banisar published by
freedominfo.org. See "Freedom of Information Around the World
2006":

http://www.freedominfo.org/countries/index.htm

I chatted with reporter Julie Corwin of Radio Free Europe/Radio
Liberty about "40 Years Of The Freedom Of Information Act" here:

http://tinyurl.com/h8uqo



_______________________________________________
Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the
Federation of American Scientists.

Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
web: www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
email: saftergood@fas.org
voice: (202) 454-4691

GEN. MCCAFFREY VISITS GUANTANAMO

"Arrogance, secrecy, and bad judgment have mired us in a mess in
Guantanamo from which we are having great difficulty in extricating
ourselves," wrote U.S. Army Gen. (Ret.) Barry R. McCaffrey in a report
on his recent trip to the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay.

"The JTF Guantanamo Detention Center is the most professional, firm,
humane and carefully supervised confinement operation that I have
ever personally observed," he stated.

At the same time, "Much of the international community views the
Guantanamo Detention Center as a place of shame and routine violation
of human rights. This view is not correct. However, there will be no
possibility of correcting that view."

"There is now no possible political support for Guantanamo going
forward," Gen. McCaffrey wrote.

"We need a political-military decisive move to break the deadlock" and
to permit the closure of the Guantanamo detention facility.

Gen. McCaffrey proposed a combination of steps including transfer of
as many detainees as possible to their host countries, criminal
trials for some, and efforts to engage foreign and international
legal organs to assume jurisdiction.

"We need to rapidly weed out as many detainees as possible and return
them to their host nation with an evidence package as complete as we
can produce. We can probably dump 2/3 of the detainees in the next 24
months."

"Many we will encounter again armed with an AK47 on the battlefields
of Iraq and Afghanistan. They will join the 120,000 + fighters we now
contend with in those places of combat."

But even if that is so, he wrote, "It may be cheaper and cleaner to
kill them in combat then sit on them for the next 15 years."

"We need to be completely transparent with the international legal and
media communities about the operations of our detention procedures
wherever they are located," Gen. McCaffrey advised.

A copy of Gen. McCaffrey's June 28, 2006 trip report on his June 18-19
trip to Guantanamo is available here:

http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/mccaffrey.pdf

SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2006, Issue No. 78
July 11, 2006

Secrecy News Blog: http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/


** A NEW IRAQ CULTURE SMART CARD
** DOD ON GENEVA CONVENTIONS, CRS ON MILITARY COMMISSIONS, ETC.
** FOREIGN INFLUENCE AND SECURITY CLEARANCE DETERMINATIONS
** THE CIA'S ANTI-BUSH CABAL


A NEW IRAQ CULTURE SMART CARD

"Don't use your left hand for contact with others," advises the U.S.
Marine Corps in a new edition of the Iraq Culture Smart Card which
is distributed to military personnel in Iraq. "It is considered
unclean."

It seems late in the day for such niceties. Amid the daily brutality
of the Iraq war, there is probably little to be gained by courtesy
or to be lost by mere rudeness.

But the Marine Corps Intelligence Activity evidently thinks
otherwise.

The MCIA has produced an updated Iraq Culture Smart Card, which
features rudimentary information on Iraqi customs, religion and
language. A copy was obtained by Secrecy News and is available here
(in a very large 22 MB PDF file):

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/usmc/iraqsmart-0506.pdf


DOD ON GENEVA CONVENTIONS, CRS ON MILITARY COMMISSIONS, ETC.

In a significant policy reversal, the Department of Defense last week
formally directed that the humane treatment requirements of Common
Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions shall henceforth be applied to
all prisoners and detainees in DoD custody (as first reported by the
Financial Times). See this July 7 memorandum from Deputy Secretary
of Defense Gordon England:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/dod/geneva070606.pdf

The procedures for trying enemy prisoners and detainees in the war on
terror are again a subject of deliberation (and of a hearing before
the Senate Judiciary Committee today) in the wake of the Supreme
Court's ruling that the tribunals established by the Bush
Administration are unlawful.

A 2005 report of the Congressional Research Service provides some
background on the development of this issue. Though now out of date
in certain respects, it includes useful tables comparing the various
features and procedural safeguards of general courts-martial with
those of military commissions and tribunals.

See "The Department of Defense Rules for Military Commissions:
Analysis of Procedural Rules and Comparison with Proposed
Legislation and the Uniform Code of Military Justice," updated
August 4, 2005:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL31600.pdf

Other notable new CRS reports not readily available in the public
domain include the following.

"National Emergency Powers," updated June 20, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/98-505.pdf

"Nuclear Weapons: Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty," updated June 21,
2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/IB92099.pdf

"Combat Aircraft Sales to South Asia: Potential Implications," July
6, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33515.pdf

"Restructuring U.S. Foreign Aid: The Role of the Director of Foreign
Assistance," June 16, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33491.pdf


FOREIGN INFLUENCE AND SECURITY CLEARANCE DETERMINATIONS

The House Government Reform Committee will hold a hearing July 13 on
the role that considerations of foreign influence play in decisions
to grant or deny security clearances for access to classified
information.

One of the principal considerations leading to denial of a security
clearance is when the applicant has relatives or relationships or
other ties abroad in countries of concern, and particularly in the
Middle East and the Far East.

This approach, if applied too rigidly, can be counter-productive
since the best linguists and the most accomplished area experts will
almost invariably have "relationships" of one kind or another with
persons in their region of expertise.

But the process for adjudicating disputes over clearances seems
distinctly skewed against the applicant.

In a new report, attorney Sheldon Cohen identified a peculiar anomaly
in the performance of the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals
(DOHA), which rules on disputed clearance matters for the Defense
Department. In the large majority of disputes presented to it, he
found, DOHA has consistently ruled against the applicant.

"If Department Counsel appeals a decision granting a clearance, it is
virtually assured that the Appeal Board will reverse. Yet, if an
applicant appeals a decision involving a foreign connection denying
a clearance, the Appeal Board will assuredly affirm the denial,"
found Cohen, who specializes in security clearance cases.

See "Appeal Board Decisions of the Defense Office of Hearings and
Appeals: Are They Arbitrary and Capricious?" by Sheldon I. Cohen,
July 10, 2006, linked from here:

http://www.sheldoncohen.com/publications/

Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the
Federation of American Scientists.

Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
web: www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
email: saftergood@fas.org
voice: (202) 454-4691

U.S. ARMY ISSUES MANUAL ON POLICE INTELLIGENCE OPERATIONS

A new U.S. Army Field Manual introduces the concept of "police
intelligence operations," an emerging hybrid of military
intelligence and law enforcement.

"Police intelligence operations are a military police function that
supports, enhances, and contributes to a commander's situational
understanding and battlefield visualization and FP [force
protection] programs by portraying the relevant criminal threat and
friendly information, which may affect his operational and tactical
environment."

The new manual presents doctrine that is broadly applicable to
support military operations abroad as well as domestic military
facility protection.

A copy of the new manual was obtained by Secrecy News.

See "Police Intelligence Operations," Field Manual 3-19.50, 21 July
2006 (3.8 MB PDF):

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-19-50.pdf

SELECTED CRS REPORTS

Some notable new reports of the Congressional Research Service that
are not readily available to the general public include the
following.

"Navy F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler Aircraft: Background
and Issues for Congress," updated June 8, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL30624.pdf

"Air Force Aerial Refueling Methods: Flying Boom versus
Hose-and-Drogue," updated June 5, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32910.pdf

"Project BioShield," updated June 5, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/RS21507.pdf

"China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities
-- Background and Issues for Congress," June 2, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33153.pdf

DOD DOCTRINE ON MILITARY DECEPTION

The role of deception in military operations is illuminated and
elaborated in a new Department of Defense doctrinal publication.

Military deception refers to "those actions executed to deliberately
mislead adversary decision makers as to friendly military
capabilities, intentions, and operations, thereby causing the
adversary to take specific actions (or inactions) that will
contribute to the accomplishment of the friendly mission."

The principles of deception and their execution are described in some
detail in the 79 page publication.

Some types of deception are "perfidious" and are prohibited by the
laws of war.

"Acts of perfidy include, but are not limited to: feigning surrender
or waving a white flag in order to lure the enemy into a trap; misuse
of protective signs, signals, and symbols in order to injure, kill,
or capture the enemy;" and so on.

Even when properly executed, a deception operation or cover story "may
fail for many reasons. It is possible that the target will not
receive the story, not believe the story, be unable to act, be
indecisive even if the story is believed, act in unforeseen ways, or
may discover the deception."

Furthermore, the document explains, one must assume that the enemy is
also engaged in deception, creating the need for "counterdeception"
programs, both defensive and offensive.

Offensive counterdeception "focuses on forcing an adversary to expend
resources and continue deception operations that have been detected
by reinforcing the perception that friendly forces are unaware of
them."

The new publication concludes with a series of maxims summarizing
central lessons of experience in the field, and a suggested reading
list.

See "Military Deception," Joint Publication 3-13.4, July 13, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/jp3_13_4.pdf

SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2006, Issue No. 85
August 2, 2006

Secrecy News Blog: http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/


** OF LEAKS AND WHISTLEBLOWERS
** MISSILE DEFENSE DEPLOYMENTS "SECRET FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES"
** HOUSE BILL WOULD OPEN UP INTELLIGENCE OVERSIGHT
** SOME RECENT CONGRESSIONAL PUBLICATIONS
** DOD ANNUAL REPORT ON COUNTERPROLIFERATION
** STEALTH SATELLITE SOURCEBOOK
** CRS ON INDIA AND PAKISTAN


OF LEAKS AND WHISTLEBLOWERS

Senator Christopher Bond (R-Missouri) introduced legislation today
to criminalize the unauthorized disclosure of classified
information.

"We need to send a message that leaks will not be tolerated and
give prosecutors a modern and appropriate tool to go after those
who do leak," he said.

The new Bond bill is identical to the controversial anti-leak
legislation sponsored by Senator Richard Shelby in the FY 2001
Intelligence Authorization Act that was vetoed by President
Clinton in November 2000.

See "Bond Legislation Targets Intelligence Leaks," August 2:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2006/08/bond080206.html

Meanwhile, a new U.S. intelligence policy on unauthorized
disclosures of classified information is pending, the Director of
National Intelligence said last week in a progress report.

"The DOJ and ODNI are ... working closely on leaks issues," he
wrote. "In March 2006 the ODNI issued policies to consolidate IC
reporting of leaks and is now preparing to issue a Community-wide
directive on [unauthorized] disclosures." See (at page 8):

http://www.fas.org/irp/dni/prog072706.pdf

The National Security Whistleblowers Coalition disclosed last week
that former NSA employee Russell Tice had been summoned to appear
before a grand jury investigating the unauthorized disclosure of
classified information. See related background, including a copy
of the grand jury summons, on the Coalition web site here:

http://www.nswbc.org/

Mr. Tice and other national security whistleblowers testified
before the House Committee on Government Reform last February, and
the record of that hearing has just been published.

See "National Security Whistleblowers in the post-9/11 Era: Lost in
a Labyrinth and Facing Subtle Retaliation," February 14, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_hr/whistle.html


MISSILE DEFENSE DEPLOYMENTS "SECRET FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES"

The names of foreign countries that are being considered for
deployment of U.S. missile defense systems are unclassified but
nevertheless should be kept secret, the Missile Defense Agency
ordered last year.

"There are many operational and political sensitivities that
require varying levels of protection as we consider possible
deployments," wrote MDA Deputy Director Gen. Marvin K. McNamara.

"Therefore, I am requiring that potential host nations being
studied or considered by MDA for operational deployments not be
identified by country or city name in any form on Unclassified
computer systems....."

The November 22, 2005 MDA memorandum on "Protection of Information
Regarding Operational Deployments" was obtained by Nick
Schwellenbach of the Project on Government Oversight and is
available here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/dod/mda112205.pdf

In an email message also obtained by POGO, an MDA security manager
paraphrased the policy this way: "Information regarding
operational deployments should be treated as 'Secret' for
political purposes and, for that reason, the information is to be
sent encrypted or by SIPRNET."

What is at issue here, explained Victoria Samson of the Center for
Defense Information, is the location of the third site for the
Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system, which is still under
conideration.

But not everyone got the word.

In a March 20, 2006 briefing by MDA Director Gen. Trey Obering,
obtained by Ms. Samson, three countries are identified as possible
candidates for the third ground-based site: the United Kingdom,
the Czech Republic, and Poland. See "Missile Defense Program
Update" (at slide 35):

http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/dod/mda032006.pdf

Official controls on unclassified information have mushroomed in
recent years. An interagency task force that conducted an
inventory of so-called Sensitive But Unclassified control markings
recently identified 164 distinct marking systems for controlling
unclassified information, according to Grace Mastalli, who
co-chaired the task force.


HOUSE BILL WOULD OPEN UP INTELLIGENCE OVERSIGHT

A bipartisan bill introduced in the House would require the House
Intelligence Committee to disclose information on intelligence
activities to other congressional committees, as long as such
disclosure did not reveal sensitive intelligence sources or
methods.

"In order to exercise proper oversight, House committees need all
pertinent information and, unfortunately, that process isn't
functioning as it was intended to," said Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ),
who introduced the bill.

"We should not have to rely on the morning paper to learn about
secret government programs, particularly when we sit on committees
that are charged with overseeing such programs," said Rep. Adam
Schiff (D-CA), a co-sponsor.

See the "Intelligence Oversight Act" (H.R. 5954) here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_cr/hr5954.html

In a move that may enhance its legislative prospects, the bill has
been referred to the House Rules Committee rather than to the
House Intelligence Committee, UPI's Shaun Waterman reported.


SOME RECENT CONGRESSIONAL PUBLICATIONS

Some noteworthy congressional documents that have recently been
published include the following.

"The Need to Know: Information Sharing Lessons for Disaster
Response," House Committee on Government Reform, March 30, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2006/infoshare.html

"Plane Clothes: Lack of Anonymity at the Federal Air Marshal
Service Compromises Aviation and National Security," House
Judiciary Committee investigative report, May 25, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2006/plane.pdf

"The Terrorist Threat from Shoulder-Fired Missiles," House
Committee on International Relations, March 30, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_hr/manpads.pdf


DOD ANNUAL REPORT ON COUNTERPROLIFERATION

The Department of Defense recently published its annual report on
counterproliferation, an overview of U.S. government programs to
detect, prevent and counter the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction.

See "Report on Activities and Programs for Countering Proliferation
and NBC Terrorism, Counterproliferation Program Review
Committee," Volume I, Executive Summary, May 2006:

http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/nbcterror2006.pdf

See also the related "Department of Defense Chemical and Biological
Defense Program, Annual Report to Congress," March 2006 (8.5 MB
PDF):

http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/cbdp2006.pdf


STEALTH SATELLITE SOURCEBOOK

Published sources on stealthy satellites were compiled in "A
Stealth Satellite Sourcebook" by independent researcher Allen
Thomson, available here:

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/track/stealth.pdf

An earlier compilation on the French GRAVES space surveillance
system, also by Mr. Thomson, may be found here:

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/track/graves.pdf


CRS ON INDIA AND PAKISTAN

New reports of the Congressional Research Service, not readily
available to the public, include the following:

"India-U.S. Relations," updated July 31, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33529.pdf

"Pakistan-U.S. Relations," updated July 27, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33498.pdf

Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
web: www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
email: saftergood@fas.org
voice: (202) 454-4691

SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2006, Issue No. 86
August 3, 2006

Secrecy News Blog: http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/

** AIRCRAFT ANTI-MISSILE SYSTEMS NEED MORE WORK, DHS SAYS
** SELECTED CRS REPORTS


AIRCRAFT ANTI-MISSILE SYSTEMS NEED MORE WORK, DHS SAYS

The potential threat to commercial aircraft from hostile use of
shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles (Man Portable Air Defense
Systems, or MANPADS) still does not have a satisfactory
technological solution, the Department of Homeland Security said
in a new report to Congress.

"It is feasible to transition selected military [defense]
technology to the commercial aviation environment, but it is
challenging from a logistics, cost, export control, and, to some
extent, from a liability perspective," the DHS report said.

"Additional design, development, test, and actual operation [of
counter-MANPADS technology] in the commercial environment is
needed to improve reliability, reduce drag and weight, incorporate
technology protection, [and] enhance producibility...."

See "Department of Homeland Security Counter-MANPADS Program
Summary, Report to Congress Detailing Phases I and II Findings of
the Counter-MANPADS Program," DHS Science and Technology
Directorate, July 31, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dhs/manpads.pdf

The new DHS assessment, which has not previously been made
available to the public, was first reported by the Associated
Press.

See "Airline Anti-Missile System Years Away" by Leslie Miller,
Associated Press, July 31:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-5985901,00.html

Extensive background on MANPADS proliferation prepared by Matthew
Schroeder of the FAS Arms Sales Monitoring Project is available
here:

http://www.fas.org/asmp/campaigns/MANPADS/MANPADS.html

"Congress needs to keep in mind that onboard anti-missile systems
are not a panacea; they only protect planes from a small
sub-category of threats, and provide no protection for Americans
flying on foreign airliners that aren't equipped with the
systems," Mr. Schroeder said. "If Congress goes this route, they
need to redouble non- and counter-proliferation efforts."


SELECTED CRS REPORTS

Numerous new reports of the Congressional Research Service on
subjects of public interest and concern have been issued lately.
Yet by design, they are not made readily available to the public.
They include the following.

"The Department of Defense Rules for Military Commissions: Analysis
of Procedural Rules and Comparison with Proposed Legislation and
the Uniform Code of Military Justice," updated July 25, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL31600.pdf

"Hamdan v. Rumsfeld: Military Commissions in the 'Global War on
Terrorism'," July 6, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22466.pdf

"Military Tribunals: Historical Patterns and Lessons," July 9,
2004:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32458.pdf

"Iran: U.S. Concerns and Policy Responses," updated July 31, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL32048.pdf

"Israeli-Arab Negotiations: Background, Conflicts, and U.S.
Policy," updated July 25, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33530.pdf

"Lebanon," updated July 24, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33509.pdf

"European Approaches to Homeland Security and Counterterrorism,"
July 24, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL33573.pdf

"China and Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction and
Missiles: Policy Issues," updated July 17, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL31555.pdf

"Banning Fissile Material Production for Nuclear Weapons: Prospects
for a Treaty (FMCT)," July 14, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RS22474.pdf

"North Korean Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States,"
updated July 6, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RS21473.pdf

"International Small Arms and Light Weapons Transfers: U.S.
Policy," updated June 27, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS20958.pdf




_______________________________________________
Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the
Federation of American Scientists.
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
web: www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
email: saftergood@fas.org
voice: (202) 454-4691

SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2006, Issue No. 87
August 4, 2006

Secrecy News Blog: http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/

** INFORMATION OPERATIONS IN IRAQ - WHAT WENT WRONG?

INFORMATION OPERATIONS IN IRAQ - WHAT WENT WRONG?

Information operations that are designed to influence the
perceptions and conduct of enemy combatants and non-combatants
can be a highly effective adjunct to military force, but they
were not effectively executed by the U.S. military in Iraq, a
new U.S. Army monograph reports.

Information operations can include military deception,
psychological operations, operations security, and electronic
warfare.

The Army monograph investigates the role of information
operations in Iraq and presents recommendations for changes in
doctrine, training, resources and intelligence support.

See "Information Operations in Operations Enduring Freedom and
Iraqi Freedom -- What Went Wrong?" by Major Joseph L. Cox, US
Army School of Advanced Military Studies, Fort Leavenworth, May
2006 (134 pages, 3.6 MB PDF):

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/cox.pdf

Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
web: www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
email: saftergood@fas.org
voice: (202) 454-4691

SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2006, Issue No. 88
August 9, 2006

Secrecy News Blog: http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/


** AIR FORCE LAB WILL NOT FUND CONTROVERSIAL FOIA STUDY
** DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE ON THE LOOKOUT FOR MANPADS COMPONENTS
** ETHIOPIA RATIFIES NUCLEAR TEST BAN TREATY


AIR FORCE LAB WILL NOT FUND CONTROVERSIAL FOIA STUDY

The Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) said this week that it
will not administer a grant to a San Antonio, Texas law school to
study state freedom of information laws.

In a story that prompted new concerns about official secrecy, USA
Today reported last month that the government was going to pay St.
Mary's University School of Law $1 million to reevaluate state
freedom of information laws in light of the threat of terrorism.

But the proposed freedom of information study "doesn't fit with the
information research and development that we do," said Dan Emlin
of the AFRL Information Directorate in Rome, New York.

That AFRL Directorate focuses on information technology --
including C4I, artificial intelligence, and surveillance
technology -- but not information policy.

The freedom of information study "was more of a [policy] 'project'
than bona fide research," Mr. Emlin told Secrecy News, and "so the
[AFRL] Director decided 'We're not going to do it'."

Based on news reports and public statements, the proposed freedom
of information study seemed oriented towards new limitations on
public disclosure of information.

So, for example, St. Mary's law school professor Jeffrey Addicott,
the lead investigator, told USA Today that "There's the public's
right to know, but how much?"

"There's too much stuff that's easy to get that shouldn't be," he
added.

("And plenty of stuff that should be easy to get that isn't," the
Detroit Free Press objected in a July 26 editorial criticizing the
program.)

See "Tax Dollars to Fund Study on Restricting Public Data" by
Richard Willing, July 6:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...-research_x.htm

But Senator John Cornyn, who sponsored the defense budget earmark
of funds for the St. Mary's project, said its purpose was not to
increase secrecy.

"In fact, the exact opposite is true. The research will make
certain that free flow of information is not unnecessarily
hindered by security-driven laws approved by states after Sept.
11, 2001," he said in a statement on the St. Mary's web site:

http://www.stmarytx.edu/ctl/display.php?go=cornyn

"The study is not designed to assist the Department of Defense,
Pentagon or individual States to weaken either State or Federal
Freedom of Information Act laws," according to another statement
from the University.

http://www.stmarytx.edu/ctl/

Since the $1 million grant has already been appropriated by
Congress in the FY 2006 defense appropriations bill, it is
possible that another agency will step forward to administer the
award. But with AFRL's refusal to participate it is not
immediately clear which agency that might be.


DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE ON THE LOOKOUT FOR MANPADS COMPONENTS

The Defense Intelligence Agency has prepared an illustrated
briefing on the components of a MANPADS shoulder-fired
anti-aircraft missile briefing to assist security personnel
in identifying such weapons and apprehending those who possess
them without authorization.

"An individual cannot legally possess a MANPADS [man-portable air
defense system] under federal law," the DIA briefing notes.

"If you encounter an individual in possession of a piece of
equipment that resembles any of the attached photos... please hold
and notify the On-Call Intelligence agent."

The briefing was produced for the Transportation Security
Administration by the Defense Intelligence Agency's Missile and
Space Intelligence Center.

See "MANPADS Components," Defense Intelligence Agency, undated
(2002):

http://www.fas.org/irp/dia/manpads_components.pdf

A PowerPoint version of the same briefing is available here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/dia/manpads_components.ppt


ETHIOPIA RATIFIES NUCLEAR TEST BAN TREATY

Ethiopia this week became the 135th country to ratify the
comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty (CTBT), which prohibits the
explosive testing of nuclear weapons.

To enter into force, the CTBT must be ratified by 44 States listed
in Annex 2 of the Treaty. So far, 34 of those States have done
so.

See "Ethiopia ratifies Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty," CTBT
Organization news release, August 9:

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2006/08/ctbt080906.html

Background, history and current status of the proposed test ban may
be found in "Nuclear Weapons: Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty,"
Congressional Research Service, updated June 21, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/IB92099.pdf

Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
web: www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
email: saftergood@fas.org
voice: (202) 454-4691

SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2006, Issue No. 90
August 14, 2006

Secrecy News Blog: http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/

** AIPAC DEFENDANTS DID NOT SEEK CLASSIFIED DOCUMENT, COURT RULES
** MANPADS REPORT WITHDRAWN FROM FAS WEB SITE
** A POSTSCRIPT ON MOBILE IRAQI BW LABS
** NASRALLAH: A SELF-PORTRAIT
** ARMY ISSUES NEW REGS FOR UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS
** TIME OUT


AIPAC DEFENDANTS DID NOT SEEK CLASSIFIED DOCUMENT, COURT RULES

In a favorable decision for two former officials of the American
Israel Public Affairs Committee who are charged with conspiracy to
unlawfully gather national defense information, a federal court ruled
late last week that they did not solicit actual classified documents
and that the government cannot now claim that they did.

The latest decision follows an earlier ruling last week that denied
the defendants' motion to dismiss the case altogether.

The only document that was solicited by the defendants was described
in their August 2005 indictment as "not classified."

"Significantly, this is the only overt act in which one of the
defendants is alleged to have requested a document from a government
official," the court noted in the new ruling.

"While defendants are alleged to have discussed classified information
with government officials, including information contained in
classified documents, the superseding indictment does not allege that
either [defendants] Rosen or Weissman ever sought an actual copy of
any classified document from a government official," the court noted.

But lately, the prosecution has changed its position and now wants to
argue that the requested document was in fact classified after all.

The court said no. To make such a claim at this stage is not
permissible since it "alters an essential fact alleged in the
superseding indictment" and would therefore be unconstitutional.

The August 11 ruling by Judge T.S. Ellis, III, was first reported
today by the New York Sun. See a copy of the decision here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/jud/rosen081106.pdf

While advantageous to the defendants, the new ruling underscores the
radical implications of this unprecedented case.

The upshot of the court's interpretation is that the defendants (or
anyone else) may be guilty of violating the Espionage Act even if
they did not solicit classified "documents," but only "information."
And not only that, the "information" they gather need not be
classified, as long as it is "related to the national defense" and
closely held by the government.

"Although not strictly necessary, nor always sufficient, the
classification of information is highly probative of whether it is,
in fact, 'information related to the national defense' such that a
defendant could be prosecuted for its unauthorized disclosure," the
latest ruling said.

This is a crucial observation.

Classification may "not [be] strictly necessary" to justify
prosecution of unauthorized disclosures (including disclosures by
non-governmental persons such as the defendants) since, the Court
affirmed, there are various kinds of unclassified, national
defense-related information that are protected by the Espionage Act.

(On the other hand, mere classification may not be "sufficient" to
render information protected by the specific terms of the Espionage
Act because there are some kinds of classified information, e.g. some
diplomatic or intelligence information, that are plainly not related
to "national defense.")

I discussed some of the implications of the AIPAC case on the NPR
program On the Media this week ("No Secrets Allowed"):

http://www.onthemedia.org/otm081106.html

Although Lebanon has one or two other things to worry about these
days, word of last week's decision in the AIPAC case was even
featured in the Lebanese news outlet Ya Libnan, datelined "Beirut and
Washington" (based on a Washington Post story by Jerry Markon):

http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/2006/08/...udge_allows.php


MANPADS REPORT WITHDRAWN FROM FAS WEB SITE

A July 31 Department of Homeland Security report to Congress on the
status of defenses against shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles
was removed from the Federation of American Scientists web site
after DHS objected to its publication.

DHS urged that the unclassified report, marked "For Official Use
Only," be taken offline and, upon consideration, we agreed to do so.

"The Report has never been released by DHS to the public because it
contains sensitive information such as the transition of military
technology for potential civil use, systems performance of the
prototype systems being developed by DHS and its partners, and the
reliability of such prototype systems," wrote DHS deputy associate
general counsel William H. Anderson.

"Due to the sensitive nature of the Report, I request that your
organization immediately remove the Report from its website."

"If the Report is not removed from your website within 2 business
days, we will consider further appropriate actions necessary to
protect the information contained in the Report," Mr. Anderson wrote.
See his August 9 letter here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2006/08/dhs080906.pdf

"You took it offline? I'm surprised," said one Congressional staffer
who obtained the DHS report to Congress via FAS.

He said that executive branch restrictions on unclassified information
had become a growing hindrance to Congressional oversight. If the
document is really sensitive, he suggested, "it should be
classified."

Our intention is to review the document in light of the concerns
expressed by DHS. Following such review, the document or portions of
it may be restored to our web site.


A POSTSCRIPT ON MOBILE IRAQI BW LABS

Did U.S. intelligence analysts actually "replicate" the mobile
biological weapons laboratories that were supposedly deployed by
Saddam Hussein, as stated in the Silberman-Robb Commission report?

Arms control expert Milton Leitenberg of the University of Maryland
posed this question earlier this year (Secrecy News, 06/29/06).

Based on his own investigations, he has now concluded that there was
no such replication of the supposed mobile BW labs.

"No mock-up containing the pieces of equipment shown in the drawings
appears to have been produced, and no biological agent or simulant
was produced."

"Apparently the drawings [used in Secretary Powell's 2003 UN
presentation] were all that was ever prepared."

"These self-conceived and self-imagined illustrations were all the
'evidence' that the United States government had to give to Secretary
of State Powell to place before the United Nations and the world to
support the claim that Iraq had mobile biological weapon production
platforms...," Dr. Leitenberg wrote.

See "Further Information Regarding US Government Attribution of a
Mobile Biological Production Capacity by Iraq" by Milton Leitenberg,
August 2006:

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/leitenberg.html


NASRALLAH: A SELF-PORTRAIT

"I have been reading [former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon's
biography for a while now, and I am going to read the book again."

So said Hizbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah in an autobiographical note
published last week in a Tehran magazine.

In a discussion of his political objectives, he seemed to exclude the
possibility of establishing an Islamic Republic in Lebanon.

"Establishing an Islamic Republic is not possible with force and
resistance. It requires a national referendum. A referendum that wins
51 percent of the vote is still not the solution. What it needs is a
referendum for which 90 percent of the people vote."

But about 40% of the Lebanese population is Christian.

"Hence, with this assumption, and in view of the status quo,
establishing an Islamic Republic system in Lebanon is not possible at
the present time," he said.

See "Seyyed Hasan Nasrallah's Autobiography," Ya Lesarat Ol-Hoseyn
(Tehran), translated by the DNI Open Source Center, August 10:

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2006/08/nasrallah.html

In a recent U.S. Treasury Department tabulation of hundreds of
terrorist and criminal organizations and individuals, Nasrallah is
listed with his passport number and date of birth -- August 31. But
for some reason his year of birth is given variously as 1953, 1955,
1958 or 1960 (noticed by Amir Oren of Haaretz):

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2006/07/fr071306.html

Most news accounts indicate that his year of birth is 1960, though
some suggest, probably incorrectly, that he has already turned 46.


ARMY ISSUES NEW REGS FOR UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS

The U.S. Army has updated its regulations governing unmanned aircraft
system operations.

See "Unmanned Aircraft System Flight Regulations," U.S. Army
Regulation 95-23, 7 August 2006:

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/ar95-23.pdf

Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the
Federation of American Scientists.

Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
web: www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
email: saftergood@fas.org
voice: (202) 454-4691

SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2006, Issue No. 91
August 25, 2006

Secrecy News Blog: http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/

Support Secrecy News:
http://www.fas.org/static/contrib_sec.jsp


** COSTS OF SECRECY SKYROCKET TO $9 BILLION
** ARMY REG ON CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION
** HOMELAND SECURITY INTELLIGENCE (CRS)
** U.S. CONVENTIONAL FORCES, NUCLEAR DETERRENCE AND CHINA (CRS)


COSTS OF SECRECY SKYROCKET TO $9 BILLION

The annual financial costs attributable to the national security
classification system reached a record high of $9.2 billion in 2005
according to a new report from the Information Security Oversight
Office (ISOO).

Classification-related costs include not merely the direct costs of
classifying information, which are modest, but also the derivative
costs of the personnel security clearance system, physical security
for classified material, classified computer security, and more.
Most of these costs are incurred within government, but some are
due to the handling of classified information within industry.

"The Government cost estimate for FY 2005 is $7.7 billion, which is a
$420 million, or 5.8 percent increase above the cost estimates
reported for FY 2004," the Information Security Oversight Office
reported. "The industry estimate is up by $696 million."

"This makes the total 2005 cost estimate for Government and industry
$9.2 billion, which is $1.2 billion more than the total FY 2004 cost
estimate for Government and industry."

These figures do not include classification cost estimates for the
Central Intelligence Agency, because the CIA has classified its cost
data.

See "2005 Report on Cost Estimates for Security Classification
Activities," Information Security Oversight Office
(www.archives.gov/isoo), August 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/isoo/2005costs.pdf

If the classification system were functioning properly to enhance
national security, these billions of dollars might all be money well
spent. But there is abundant reason to doubt that such is the case.

"There's over 50 percent of the information that, while it may meet
the criteria for classification, really should not be classified in
terms of what we lose," said ISOO director William Leonard at an
August 24, 2004 hearing of the House Government Reform Committee.

"The price we pay for classification outweighs any perception, any
advantage we perceive we gain," he told the Committee.

The Information Security Oversight Office, which was established by
Executive Order, reports to the President on national security
classification policy.

Mr. Leonard criticized the Washington Post in a remarkable letter to
the editor today for reporting "irrelevant" negative information
about the personal history of a critic of the classification system.

"Publishing it served no useful public purpose and could, in fact,
discourage citizens who take seriously their civic responsibility to
lodge complaints regarding the activities of their government," he
wrote.

http://tinyurl.com/n4fcl


ARMY REG ON CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION

U.S. Army policy for dealing with military personnel who assert a
conscientious objection to military combat is set forth in a newly
updated Army regulation.

Criteria for likely approval or rejection of a conscientious
objection claim are described. Claims that are insincere or "based
on objection to a certain war" will "not be favorably considered."

The Regulation accepts the reality of conscientious objection with
due respect.

"Care must be exercised not to deny the existence of beliefs simply
because those beliefs are incompatible with one's own," it states.

In any case, "The burden of establishing a claim of conscientious
objection as grounds for separation or assignment to noncombatant
training and service is on the applicant."

See "Conscientious Objection," Army Regulation 600-43, 21 August
2006:

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/ar600-43.pdf


HOMELAND SECURITY INTELLIGENCE (CRS)

The first in a new series of Congressional Research Service reports
on homeland security intelligence presents a broad introduction to
the subject.

"The proliferation of intelligence and information fusion centers
across the country indicate that state and local leaders believe
there is value to centralizing intelligence gathering and analysis
in a manner that assists them in preventing and responding to local
manifestations of terrorist threats to their people, infrastructure,
and other assets," the CRS report suggests.

See "Homeland Security Intelligence: Perceptions, Statutory
Definitions, and Approaches," August 18, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RL33616.pdf


U.S. CONVENTIONAL FORCES, NUCLEAR DETERRENCE AND CHINA (CRS)

A new Congressional Research Service report proposes an analytical
framework for assessing the comparative strengths of U.S.
conventional and nuclear forces in the context of a hypothetical
future conflict with China.

The authors consider "the possible role that U.S. nuclear and
conventional forces might play in four stages of potential
conflicts: deterrence, prior to the start of the conflict; crisis
stability in the early stages of the conflict; warfighting during
the height of the conflict; and war termination, through either a
negotiated settlement or a battlefield victory."

The new report "highlights a number of policy issues that may bear
consideration in the ongoing debate regarding military
investments," but refrains from drawing specific conclusions.

CRS does not make its reports directly available to the public. A
copy was obtained by Secrecy News.

See "U.S. Conventional Forces and Nuclear Deterrence: A China Case
Study," August 11, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33607.pdf


Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the
Federation of American Scientists.
web: www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
email: saftergood@fas.org
voice: (202) 454-4691

SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2006, Issue No. 95
September 7, 2006

Secrecy News Blog: http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/

Support Secrecy News:
http://www.fas.org/static/contrib_sec.jsp


** DOD UNVEILS DETAINEE INTERROGATION POLICY
** 2007 INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION BILL STALLED
** DHS LISTS "SENSITIVE SECURITY INFORMATION" TITLES
** ODDS AND ENDS
** LOUIS FISHER ON THE "SOLE ORGAN" DOCTRINE


DOD UNVEILS DETAINEE INTERROGATION POLICY

The Department of Defense, having concluded that its interests would
be best served by public disclosure, released a new directive on
policy towards enemy detainees and a new Army Field Manual on
detainee interrogation.

The new detainee policy explicitly bars "cruel, inhumane and
degrading" treatment of detainees who are in Defense Department
custody and defines a minimum standard of humane care. The new Field
Manual identifies 19 interrogation techniques that may be used, three
of which are new, and prohibits others.

Army Gen. John Kimmons said that the Pentagon weighed the costs and
benefits of classifying portions of the new policy documents, and
decided in favor of full public disclosure.

"We initially considered taking the additional techniques I described,
the three new ones, and putting them into a classified appendix of
some sort to keep them out of the hands of the enemy, who regularly
reads our field manuals as a matter of course," he said at a
September 6 Pentagon press briefing.

"We weighed that against the needs for transparency and working openly
with our coalition partners who don't have access to all of our
classified publications...."

"We also felt that even classified techniques, once you use them on
the battlefield over time, become increasingly known to your enemies,
some of whom are going to be released in due course. And so on
balance, in consultation with our combatant commanders, we decided to
go this [unclassified] route. We're very comfortable with it; so are
our combatant commanders," Gen. Kimmons said.

The new Army Field Manual is still marked "For Official Use Only"
(FOUO). But "in the interest of full transparency" the Army released
it anyway.

"The 'FOUO' markings are no longer operative," an Army spokesman said.

See "Human Intelligence Collector Operations," Field Manual FM 2-22.3,
September 2006 (11 MB PDF file):

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm2-22-3.pdf

See also "Department of Defense Detainee Program," DoD Directive
2310.01E, September 5, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/d2310_01e.pdf

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence likewise found it
advantageous and appropriate to disclose significant new information
about 14 "high value detainees" that were formally transferred from
the custody of the Central Intelligence Agency to the Department of
Defense.

See "Summary of the High Value Terrorist Detainee Program," ODNI,
September 6:

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2006/09/hivaluedetainees.pdf

See also ODNI "biographies" of the 14 detainees here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2006/09/detaineebios.pdf

The occasional triumphs and frequent defects of media coverage of the
detention and treatment of enemy combatants were reviewed at length
by Eric Umansky in "Failures of Imagination," Columbia Journalism
Review, September/October 2006:

http://www.cjr.org/issues/2006/5/Umansky.asp


2007 INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION BILL STALLED

For the second year in a row, the U.S. Senate may fail to enact an
intelligence authorization bill, effectively neutering the
intelligence oversight process.

"The failure of the Senate to pass intelligence authorization for 2
years threatens to erode the ability of the Intelligence Committee to
carry out the mission assigned to it by the Senate," said Sen. Jay
Rockefeller (D-WV), the ranking member of the Committee, in a floor
statement.

In an effort to compel Senate action on the intelligence bill, Sen.
Rockefeller introduced an amendment that would strip out language in
the Defense Appropriations bill that provides a nominal authorization
for continuing intelligence activities.

See September 6 statements by Sen. Rockefeller and Sen. Dianne
Feinstein here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_cr/s090606.html


DHS LISTS "SENSITIVE SECURITY INFORMATION" TITLES

In an attempt to limit unnecessary controls on unclassified
information, Congress last year required the Department of Homeland
Security to identify by title all DHS documents that were marked as
"Sensitive Security Information" (SSI) that may not be publicly
disclosed.

In response, the first DHS report to Congress listed approximately one
thousand titles that had been marked as SSI between October 1 and
December 31, 2005.

A copy of that report has just been released with minor redactions in
response to a Freedom of Information Act request from the Federation
of American Scientists.

See "Department of Homeland Security Documents Designated in Their
Entirety as Sensitive Security Information (SSI), October 1 Thru
December 31, 2005" (3.5 MB PDF):

http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/dhs/ssi-titles.pdf


ODDS AND ENDS

The National Archives described progress on a new National
Declassification Initiative that has the potential to streamline
declassification of historical records by eliminating multiple agency
reviews of the same document. See:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2006/09/nara090606.html

Two more Army Field Manuals of specialized interest were published
this week:

"Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (TTPs) for the Joint Network
Node-Network (JNN-N)," Field Manual-Interim FMI 6-02.60, September
2006:

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fmi6-02-60.pdf

"Army Electromagnetic Spectrum Management Operations," Field Manual
Interim FMI 6-02.70, September 2006:

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fmi6-02-70.pdf

Sen. Jon Kyl introduced a bill that would expand the definition of
illegal material support to terrorists, modify the Classified
Information Procedures Act, and penalize terrorism-related hoaxes.
See his introduction of the "Terrorism Prevention Act of 2006"
(S. 3848):

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_cr/s3848.html

The record of the March 31, 2006 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on
a proposal by Sen. Russ Feingold to censure the President has
recently been published. See:

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_hr/censure.html


LOUIS FISHER ON THE "SOLE ORGAN" DOCTRINE

"The President is the sole organ of the nation in its external
relations, and its sole representative with foreign nations,"
according to a statement made in 1800 by John Marshall.

This so-called "sole organ" doctrine has frequently been invoked by
the executive branch "to define presidential power broadly in foreign
relations and national security, including assertions of an inherent
executive power that is not subject to legislative or judicial
constraints," writes constitutional scholar Louis Fisher in a new Law
Library of Congress study.

"When read in context, however, Marshall's speech does not support an
independent, extra-constitutional or exclusive power of the President
in foreign relations."

"The concept of an Executive having sole power over foreign relations
borrows from other sources, including the British model of a royal
prerogative," Fisher concludes.

Fisher's analysis of the sole organ doctrine is the first in a series
of new studies of inherent presidential power prepared at the request
of Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV). A copy was obtained by Secrecy News.

See "The 'Sole Organ' Doctrine" by Louis Fisher, Law Library of
Congress, Studies on Presidential Power in Foreign Relations, Study
No. 1, August 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/fisher.pdf



_______________________________________________
Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the
Federation of American Scientists.
web: www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
email: saftergood@fas.org
voice: (202) 454-4691

SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2006, Issue No. 98
September 15, 2006

Secrecy News Blog: http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/


** DECLASSIFICATION BOARD TASKED TO REVIEW SENATE REPORTS
** UNDISCLOSED U.S. DETENTION SITES OVERSEAS AND MORE FROM CRS


DECLASSIFICATION BOARD TASKED TO REVIEW SENATE REPORTS

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-KS) has endorsed
a proposal to task the Public Interest Declassification Board (PIDB)
to review the recent Intelligence Committee reports on pre-war
intelligence to determine if they were properly declassified.

He acted in response to harsh criticism from Senate Democrats alleging
that the Bush Administration had abused its classification authority
to conceal embarrassing or offensive information in the reports that
was unrelated to national security.

Instead of pursuing legislative action to compel declassification, as
urged by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Senator Roberts said that
the PIDB should be asked to render a judgment, as originally proposed
last week by Sen. Ron Wyden.

"Let's let the Public Interest Declassification Board take a look at
these reports," said Sen. Roberts in the course of a heated debate on
the Senate floor September 14.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_cr/declass091406.html

"That was the suggestion by Senator Wyden, picked up by Senator Bond,
endorsed by myself and I think by the Senator from West Virginia
[Sen. Rockefeller]. That is the proper way to go about it," Sen.
Roberts said.

The endorsement by Intelligence Committee Chairman Roberts is crucial
to the activation of the Declassification Board, since the PIDB,
under the terms of its enabling legislation, accepts congressional
requests for declassification review only when they are "made by the
committee of jurisdiction," not by individual members.

The review of the contested Intelligence Committee reports will be the
first such action to be undertaken by the Board, and it is likely to
set a precedent, whether favorable or unfavorable, for similar
reviews in the future.

The Public Interest Declassification Board, established by statute in
2000 and modified by the intelligence reform legislation of 2004, is
composed of nine non-governmental persons appointed by the President
and congressional leaders. Eight of the nine members have been named
so far. A ninth member, who is to be designated by Senate Minority
Leader Harry Reid, has still not been appointed.


UNDISCLOSED U.S. DETENTION SITES OVERSEAS AND MORE FROM CRS

The use of secret U.S. prison facilities abroad, first reported by
Dana Priest in the Washington Post in November 2005, has since been
confirmed by President Bush and has become the focus of controversy
in the U.S. and elsewhere.

A new report from the Congressional Research Service synthesizes what
is now publicly known about the secret prisons and discusses some of
the relevant legal concerns they raise. ("It is based on available
open-source documentation, as cited, and not on any independent CRS
investigation.")

A copy of the new report was obtained by Secrecy News.

See "Undisclosed U.S. Detention Sites Overseas: Background and Legal
Issues," September 12, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RL33643.pdf

Some miscellaneous other new products from CRS include the following.

"Israeli-Arab Negotiations: Background, Conflicts, and U.S. Policy,"
updated September 1, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33530.pdf

"Israel: Background and Relations with the United States," updated
August 31, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33476.pdf

"Saudi Arabia: Current Issues and U.S. Relations," August 2, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33533.pdf

"Sri Lanka: Background and U.S. Relations," updated August 1, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL31707.pdf

"Navy Ship Procurement: Alternative Funding Approaches -- Background
and Options for Congress," updated July 26, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32776.pdf

"Navy Attack Submarine Force-Level Goal and Procurement Rate:
Background and Issues for Congress," updated July 26, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32418.pdf

"Navy Ship Propulsion Technologies: Options for Reducing Oil Use --
Background for Congress," updated July 26, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33360.pdf

"Navy DDG-1000 (DD(X)), CG(X), and LCS Ship Acquisition Programs:
Oversight Issues and Options for Congress," updated July 26, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32109.pdf

"Navy-Marine Corps Amphibious and Maritime Prepositioning Ship
Programs: Background and Oversight Issues for Congress," updated July
26, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32513.pdf

"Unmanned Vehicles for U.S. Naval Forces: Background and Issues for
Congress," updated July 26, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS21294.pdf



_______________________________________________
Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the
Federation of American Scientists.

web: www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
email: saftergood@fas.org
voice: (202) 454-4691

"Enemy Combatant Detainees: Habeas Corpus Challenges in Federal
Court," updated September 26, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33180.pdf

"Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006: S. 3931 and Title II of S.
3929, the Terrorist Tracking, Identification, and Prosecution Act
of 2006," September 25, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RL33669.pdf

"Intelligence Spending: Public Disclosure Issues," updated September
25, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/94-261.pdf

"Selected Procedural Safeguards in Federal, Military, and
International Courts," updated September 18, 2006:

The terrorist's nuclear threat
http://www.fas.org/ssp/docs/030602-kellytestimony.htm


Dirty Bombs: Response to a threat
http://www.fas.org/ssp/docs/030602-kellytestimony.htm

Chemical Warfare, an introduction.
http://www.fas.org/cw/cwagents.htm


Bioterrorism, an introduction
http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/agentlist.asp

Agri-terrorism, what if there is nothing to eat?
http://armed-services.senate.gov/hearings/1999/e991027.htm

DEATH GRATUITIES FOR DEFENSE INTEL OFFICERS KILLED IN ACTION

Family members of U.S. military intelligence personnel who are
killed while engaged in clandestine intelligence operations may be
eligible for special monetary gratuities, according to a recently
updated Defense Department Instruction.

"A gratuity shall be paid to the dependents of any member of the
Armed Forces or of any employee of the Department of Defense
assigned to duty with a DoD intelligence component, whose identity
is disguised or concealed; or who is within a category of
individuals determined by the Secretary of Defense to be engaged
in clandestine intelligence activities; and who, after October 14,
1980, dies because of injuries (excluding disease) sustained
outside the United States and whose death resulted from hostile or
terrorist activities, or occurred in connection with an
intelligence activity having a substantial element of risk."

The new policy was issued by Under Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence Stephen A. Cambone.

See "Payment of Death Gratuity to Survivors of Certain DoD
Personnel Assigned to Intelligence Duties," DoD Instruction
1341.08, 25 August 2006:

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/i1341_08.pdf

SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2006, Issue No. 107
October 10, 2006

Secrecy News Blog: http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/

Support Secrecy News:
http://www.fas.org/static/contrib_sec.jsp


** AN ASSERTIVE NEW NATIONAL SPACE POLICY
** DOD ISSUES DOCTRINE ON COPING WITH WMD ATTACKS
** SOME RANDOM CRS REPORTS


AN ASSERTIVE NEW NATIONAL SPACE POLICY

The Bush Administration has issued a new National Space Policy that
stresses unilateral American freedom of action in space. The new
policy is intended to "enable unhindered U.S. operations in and
through space to defend our interests there."

The policy affirms "the use of outer space by all nations for
peaceful purposes, and for the benefit of all humanity."

But it declares that the United States will "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 policy, which supersedes a 1996 Presidential Decision
Directive, was almost certainly promulgated in a National Security
Presidential Directive (NSPD), which has not been publicly
disclosed. Instead, a ten page unclassified summary was released
late last week.

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/space.html

In large part, the new policy tracks closely with the previous
Clinton policy. But it also departs from it in significant and
surprising ways.

The previous policy prudently reserved judgment "on the feasibility
and desirability of conducting further human exploration
activities" beyond the International Space Station in Earth orbit.

But in a rhetorical flight of fancy, the new Bush policy purports
to adopt a new national "objective of extending human presence
across the solar system," no less.

Like the earlier policy, the new policy continues to authorize the
sometimes controversial use of nuclear power sources in space, but
it also goes on to prescribe approval procedures for the extremely
improbable scenario of "non-government spacecraft utilizing
nuclear power sources."

The 1996 policy stated that "Space nuclear reactors will not be
used in Earth orbit without specific approval by the President or
his designee." This provision seemed to embrace a 1989 proposal
by the Federation of American Scientists and others to ban nuclear
reactors in orbit as a means of forestalling deployment of
high-power orbital space weapons.

The new policy rejects that or any other infringement on unilateral
U.S. freedom of action.

"The United States will oppose the development of new legal regimes
or other restrictions that seek to prohibit or limit U.S. access
to or use of space," the Bush policy warns.

The new policy also addresses the problem of space debris, and the
classification and declassification of space-related defense and
intelligence information, among other important topics.

The text of the 1996 National Space Policy may be found here:

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/national/nstc-8.htm

A September 26 NASA Notice on the development of Advanced
Radioisotope Power Systems may be found here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2006/09/fr092606.html

The FAS proposal to ban nuclear reactors in Earth orbit was
introduced in "Space Reactor Arms Control" by Joel Primack, et al,
in Science and Global Security, Volume 1 (1989):

http://www.princeton.edu/~globsec/publicat..._1-2Primack.pdf


DOD ISSUES DOCTRINE ON COPING WITH WMD ATTACKS

With the failure to stop and reverse the spread of nuclear weapons,
military planners do not have the luxury of ignoring the
possibility that such weapons might be used against military or
civilian targets, abroad or at home.

A new Department of Defense doctrinal publication defines policies
and procedures for managing "the consequences from all deliberate
and inadvertent releases of chemical, biological, radiological,
nuclear agents or substances, and high-yield explosives with
potential to cause mass casualties and large levels of
destruction."

See "Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and High-Yield
Explosives Consequence Management," Joint Publication 3-41, Joint
Chiefs of Staff, October 2, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/jp3_41.pdf

Another new DoD policy addresses protection of military
installations "against terrorist use of chemical, biological,
radiological, nuclear and high explosive weapons."

See "DoD AntiTerrorism Standards," DoD Instruction 2000.16, October
2, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/i2000_16.pdf

And a recent DoD Directive offers a new glimpse of the organization
of U.S. nuclear command and control.

See "U.S. Nuclear Command and Control System Support Staff," DoD
Directive 3150.06, August 25, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/d3150_06.pdf


SOME RANDOM CRS REPORTS

Some recent reports of the Congressional Research Service, not
readily available to the public, include the following.

"Border Security: Barriers Along the U.S. International Border,"
September 21, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL33659.pdf

"The European Union's Energy Security Challenges," September 11,
2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33636.pdf

"Iraqi Civilian, Police, and Security Forces Casualty Estimates,"
updated September 14, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS22441.pdf

Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
web: www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
email: saftergood@fas.org
voice: (202) 454-4691

I particularly like the report issued by JCS but at 161 pages it is a hard read for a Marine. Too many word longer than two syllables too.

Sort of blows the contention out of the water that we ain't do nothing to protect America though, eh?

SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2006, Issue No. 108
October 12, 2006

Secrecy News Blog: http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/

Support Secrecy News:
http://www.fas.org/static/contrib_sec.jsp


** HOW DO EDITORS DECIDE TO PUBLISH CLASSIFIED INFO?
** THE STEALTH SATELLITE MYSTERY
** CRS ON FFATA, CTBT
** NEW MILITARY DOCTRINE
** NEW MILITARY DICTIONARIES


HOW DO EDITORS DECIDE TO PUBLISH CLASSIFIED INFO?

Actual or purported national security secrets are routinely
published not only by mainstream news organizations and
best-selling authors but also by journals of opinion on the
political left and right and the occasional blog. The ability
to freely traverse the boundaries of classified government
information, with only rare and isolated limitations, is
practically a defining characteristic of American journalism.

But how do reporters and editors decide to publish classified
information? How do they assess and respond to the concerns of
government officials? What are the consequences?

These questions are explored in depth in a long article in the
latest issue of American Journalism Review.

See "Judgment Calls" by Rachel Smolkin, AJR, October/November
2006:

http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4185


THE STEALTH SATELLITE MYSTERY

The use of stealth techniques and technologies to reduce the
signatures of intelligence or military satellites a subject that
seems to be properly classified, for the most part. But it has
also left discernable traces in the public domain.

Those traces were assembled by Allen Thomson in his Stealth
Satellite Sourcebook, which has been recently updated (148
pages, 7 MB PDF file):

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/track/stealth.pdf

See also " Stealth satellites: Cold War myth or operational
reality?" by John Croft, C4ISR Journal, October 4, 2006:

http://www.c4isrjournal.com/story.php?F=2034471


CRS ON FFATA, CTBT

A newly enacted law requires the creation of a publicly
searchable online database of government grants and contracts.
The implications of that law and the challenges ahead were
explored by the Congressional Research Service in a new report.

See "The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act:
Background, Overview, and Implementation Issues," October 6,
2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/RL33680.pdf

An impressive prototype of such a public database was unveiled
this week by the public interest group OMB Watch. See:

http://www.fedspending.org/

Also new from CRS is "Nuclear Weapons: Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty," updated October 3, 2006 (prior to the North Korean
nuclear test):

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL33548.pdf


NEW MILITARY DOCTRINE

The steady stream of new military doctrinal and other
publications includes several items which will be of interest
and importance to some Secrecy News readers.

"Counterland Operations," Air Force Doctrine Document 2-1.3, 11
September 2006, refers to the use of U.S. air and space assets
against enemy land-based forces. See:

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/usaf/afdd2-1-3.pdf

Security for U.S. ships crossing the Panama Canal is the subject
of a new Navy Instruction. "Vessels transiting the Panama Canal
encounter situations in which they are isolated from any forces
of the United States which could provide additional security if
required. These instances provide an opportunity for unfriendly
agents to harass or damage a vessel, or potentially embarrass
the United States."

See "Definition and Security Requirements for High Value Transits
of the Panama Canal," OPNAV Instruction 3100.9A, October 2,
2006:

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/navy/opnavinst/3100_9a.pdf

The U.S. Army Judge Advocate General's "Operational Law
Handbook" has recently been updated (August 2006). The Handbook
"provides references and describes tactics and techniques for
the practice of operational law....[and is intended to] help
judge advocates recognize, analyze, and resolve the problems
they will encounter in the operational context." See:

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/law0806.pdf


NEW MILITARY DICTIONARIES

"If you would converse with me," Voltaire is supposed to have
said, "define your terms!"

Several new military dictionaries make it easier to define
elusive or obscure military terms.

The Department of Defense has updated (for the second time this
year) its massive "Dictionary of Military and Associated
Terms," Joint Publication 1-02, through 17 September 2006 (752
pages, 2.2 MB PDF file):

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/jp1_02.pdf

It explains that a "blast wave," for example, is "a sharply
defined wave of increased pressure rapidly propagated through a
surrounding medium from a center of detonation or similar
disturbance."

But what is it in French?

For that one must turn to another new dictionary prepared by the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which not only defines
thousands of military terms ("blowback," "laser guided weapon,"
etc.) but also provides translations into Voltaire's language.

So, one learns, "blast wave" is "onde de souffle."

See "NATO Glossary of Terms and Definitions (English and
French)," North Atlantic Treaty Organization, 2006 (344 pages,
3.5 MB):

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/other/nato2006.pdf

And for good measure there is also a new "NATO Glossary of
Abbreviations Used in NATO Documents and Publications," 2006
(432 pages, 1.4 MB):

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/other/nato2006a.pdf

Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
web: www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
email: saftergood@fas.org
voice: (202) 454-4691

CULTIVATING MILITARY LEADERSHIP IN A DEMOCRACY

A new U.S. Army Field Manual presents a vision of excellence in
military leadership and articulates principles by which such
excellence may be achieved.

"It is critical that Army leaders be agile, multiskilled
pentathletes who have strong moral character, broad knowledge,
and keen intellect."

But in America, the "warrior ethos" is not an independent value,
the Army manual explains. Rather, the value of military
leadership derives from the constitutional order that it serves
and supports.

"The Army's military and civilian leaders are instruments of the
people of the United States."

Furthermore, the effectiveness of Army leadership is dependent on
the quality and wisdom of the elected leaders of the country.

"The elected government commits forces only after due
consideration and in compliance with our national laws and
values," the manual says. "Understanding this process gives our
Army moral strength and unwavering confidence when committed to
war."

The 200 page manual presents extensive theoretical as well as
inspirational material and a bibliography for further study.

See U.S. Army Field Manual FM 6-22, "Army Leadership: Competent,
Confident, and Agile," October 12, 2006 (4.4 MB PDF):

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm6-22.pdf

CRS ON ARMS SALES AND PROLIFERATION

Several recently updated reports from the Congressional Research
Service, not readily available to the public, provide an
introduction to the subject of conventional arms sales and the
proliferation of weapons technology.

"International Small Arms and Light Weapons Transfers: U.S.
Policy," updated October 2, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS20958.pdf

"Military Technology and Conventional Weapons Export Controls: The
Wassenaar Arrangement," updated September 29, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS20517.pdf

"Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) in Iraq and Afghanistan:
Effects and Countermeasures," updated September 25, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS22330.pdf

"Arms Sales: Congressional Review Process," December 20, 2002:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL31675.pdf

"Globalizing Cooperative Threat Reduction: A Survey of Options,"
updated October 5, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL32359.pdf

"Iran's Influence in Iraq," updated September 29, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS22323.pdf

"Project BioShield," updated September 27, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/RS21507.pdf