New reports from the Congressional Research Service that have not been made readily available to the public include the following (all pdf).

China’s Vice President Xi Jinping Visits the United States: What Is at Stake?, February 6, 2012

Lebanon and the Uprising in Syria: Issue for Congress, February 2, 2012

Iran’s Threat to the Strait of Hormuz, January 23, 2012

Sourcing Policy: Selected Developments and Issues, February 7, 2012

Smart Meter Data: Privacy and Cybersecurity, February 3, 2012

Suicide Prevention Efforts of the Veterans Health Administration, February 3, 2012

Constitutional Analysis of Suspicionless Drug Testing Requirements for the Receipt of Governmental Benefits, January 19, 2012

When Congress passed the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, it included provisions that authorized U.S. armed forces to detain persons who are captured in the conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces. However, Congress also said that those provisions did not provide any new authority to detain U.S. citizens or others who may be captured in the United States.

“Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authority relating to the detention of United States citizens…,” section 1021(e) of the Act states.  “We are simply codifying existing law,” said Sen. Carl Levin, chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, at the time.

But this was an evasion, since existing law regarding the detention of U.S. persons is indeterminate in important respects.

A new report from the Congressional Research Service fleshes out the law of detention, identifying what is known to be true as well as what is unsettled and unresolved.

It is perfectly clear, for example, that a U.S. citizen who fought alongside enemy forces against the United States on a foreign battlefield could be lawfully detained.  This was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.

On the other hand, the CRS report explains, “the President’s legal authority to militarily detain terrorist suspects apprehended in the United States has not been definitively settled.”

Nor has Congress helped to settle it.  “This bill does not endorse either side’s interpretation,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein on December 1 about the defense authorization act, “but leaves it to the courts to decide.”

So if a detention of a U.S. person does occur, the CRS said, “it will be up to a court to determine Congress’s intent when it enacted the AUMF [the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force], or alternatively, to decide whether the law as it was subsequently developed by the courts and executive branch sufficiently established that authority for such detention already exists.”

Up to now, “Lower courts that have addressed questions the Supreme Court left unanswered have not achieved a consensus on the extent to which Congress has authorized the detention without trial of U.S. persons as ‘enemy combatants,’ and Congress has not so far clarified its intent.”

The new CRS report traces the development of U.S. detention policy from the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 through the Civil War, the two World Wars, and the Cold War up to the present day. See Detention of U.S. Persons as Enemy Belligerents by CRS legislative attorney Jennifer K. Elsea, February 1, 2012.

Some other new (or newly updated) CRS reports obtained by Secrecy News that have not been made readily available to the public include the following.

Terrorist Watch List Screening and Brady Background Checks for Firearms, February 1, 2012

War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance, February 1, 2012

The U.S. Postal Service’s Financial Condition: Overview and Issues for Congress, January 27, 2012

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and other officials have warned that if U.S. military spending is cut significantly, the unacceptable result would be a “a hollow force incapable of sustaining the missions it is assigned.”

But a new critique from the Congressional Research Service suggests that the use of the term “hollow force” is inappropriate and unwarranted.

“Historically, there were two periods– post-Vietnam and again in the 1990s– when the term ‘hollow force’ was used to describe the U.S. armed forces.”  It referred to “forces that appear mission-ready but, upon examination, suffer from shortages of personnel and equipment, and from deficiencies in training.”

But a close review of the circumstances that generated a hollow force in the past does not support the use of the term today, the CRS said.  “Most of the conditions that existed in the 1970s do not exist today.”

Among other things, defense procurement spending has surged in recent years to enable significant modernization of military forces.

“Even if modernization funds become more limited in future defense budgets, overall budget data suggest the Services would enter this period after having invested in modernized forces about as substantially as in the weapons-driven buildup of the 1980s.”

“CRS has calculated that when recent amounts for weapons modernization are compared to amounts in the mid-1980s, the total inflation-adjusted dollar value of relatively modern equipment available to forces today (i.e., equipment purchased within the past 10 years) appears relatively robust.”

“Given these conditions, it can be argued that the use of the term ‘hollow force’ is inappropriate under present circumstances,” the CRS report said.

A copy of the new CRS report was obtained by Secrecy News.  See A Historical Perspective on “Hollow Forces,” January 31, 2012.

Over the past decade, the number of U.S. special operations forces (SOF) personnel has nearly doubled, while budgets for special operations have nearly tripled, and overseas deployments have quadrupled, according to a newly updated report from the Congressional Research Service.

“Special Operations Forces are elite military units with special training and equipment that can infiltrate into hostile territory through land, sea, or air to conduct a variety of operations, many of them classified,” the CRS report explains. “SOF personnel undergo rigorous selection and lengthy specialized training. The U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) oversees the training, doctrine, and equipping of all U.S. SOF units.”

Following an overview of the structure of U.S. special operations forces, the CRS report discusses the implications for special operations of recent legislation including the 2012 defense authorization act.  See U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF): Background and Issues for Congress, January 11, 2012.

A copy of the new U.S. Special Operations Command Fact Book 2012, prepared by USSOCOM Public Affairs, is available here.

Other noteworthy new reports from the Congressional Research Service that have not been made readily available to the public include the following:

Arms Sales: Congressional Review Process, February 1, 2012

The Nunn-McCurdy Act: Background, Analysis, and Issues for Congress, January 31, 2012

Immigration-Related Detention: Current Legislative Issues, January 12, 2012

The possibility of increasing U.S. investment in the Middle East as a way to encourage democratic political transitions was examined in a new report from the Congressional Research Service.  See U.S. Trade and Investment in the Middle East and North Africa: Overview and Issues, January 20, 2012.

Other new or updated CRS reports that have not been made readily available to the public include these:

Australia: Background and U.S. Relations, January 13, 2012

European Union Enlargement, January 26, 2012

President Obama has used “signing statements” to take exception to provisions of law enacted by Congress with significantly less frequency than did President George W. Bush.  He has also abandoned reference to the “unitary executive” concept that was favored by the Bush Administration.

In most other respects, however, the Obama Administration’s use of signing statements is consistent and continuous with recent past practice, according to a newly updated report from the Congressional Research Service.  The report reviewed the basis for signing statements, their legal implications, and the controversy that has surrounded them.  See Presidential Signing Statements: Constitutional and Institutional Implications, January 4, 2012.

Some other new or newly updated CRS reports that have not been made readily available to the public include the following (all pdf).

Legal Issues Associated with the Proposed Keystone XL Pipeline, January 23, 2012

“Who is a Veteran?” — Basic Eligibility for Veterans’ Benefits, January 23, 2012

Federal Aid to Roads and Highways Since the 18th Century: A Legislative History, January 6, 2012

Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress, January 6, 2012

Iran Sanctions, January 6, 2012

New or updated reports from the Congressional Research Service that have not been made readily available to the public include the following (all pdf).

Afghanistan Casualties: Military Forces and Civilians, January 18, 2012

FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Policy Issues, January 5, 2012

Spectrum Policy in the Age of Broadband: Issues for Congress, January 5, 2012

The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Terrorism Investigations, December 28, 2011

Economic Downturns and Crime, December 19, 2011

Some new or updated reports from the Congressional Research Service that have not been made readily available to the public include the following (all pdf).

Security Assistance Reform: “Section 1206” Background and Issues for Congress, January 13, 2012

The Berry Amendment: Requiring Defense Procurement To Come From Domestic Sources, January 13, 2012

In Brief: Assessing DOD’s New Strategic Guidance, January 12, 2012

Circular A-76 and the Moratorium on DOD Competitions: Background and Issues for Congress, January 17, 2012

The Federal Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program: Background, Funding and Activities, January 13, 2012

Nuclear Power Plant Design and Seismic Safety Considerations, January 12, 2012

Chemical Facility Security: Issues and Options for the 112th Congress, January 13, 2012

Recent legislative action on military detention of suspected enemy combatants perpetuates an ambiguity in the law as to whether U.S. citizens may be so detained, a new report from the Congressional Research Service says.

“The circumstances in which a U.S. citizen or other person captured or arrested in the United States may be detained under the authority conferred by the AUMF [the post-9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force] remains unsettled,” wrote CRS analyst Jennifer Elsea.  “The 2012 NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act] does not disturb the state of the law in this regard.”

“Section 1021 [of the NDAA] does not attempt to clarify the circumstances in which a U.S. citizen, resident alien, or other person captured within the United States may be held as an enemy belligerent in the conflict with Al Qaeda. Consequently, if the executive branch decides to hold such a person under the detention authority affirmed in Section 1021, it is left to the courts to decide whether Congress meant to authorize such detention when it enacted the AUMF in 2001,” the CRS report said.  See The National Defense Authorization Act for FY2012: Detainee Matters, January 11, 2012.

Some other new CRS reports that have not been made readily available to the public include these:

F-35 Alternate Engine Program: Background and Issues for Congress, January 10, 2011

Horn of Africa Region: The Humanitarian Crisis and International Response, January 6, 2012

Building Civilian Interagency Capacity for Missions Abroad: Key Proposals and Issues for Congress, December 22, 2011

Some noteworthy new reports from the Congressional Research Service include the following (all pdf):

Legal Issues Associated with the Proposed Keystone XL Pipeline, December 16, 2011

Contemporary Developments in Presidential Elections, January 9, 2012

“Surge Recovery” and Next Steps in the War in Afghanistan: In Brief, January 6, 2011

U.S. Assistance Programs in China, January 6, 2012

Border Security: Immigration Enforcement Between Ports of Entry, January 6, 2011

U.S. Unmanned Aerial Systems, January 3, 2011

Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV): Background and Issues for Congress, January 3, 2012

Kim Jong-il’s Death: Implications for North Korea’s Stability and U.S. Policy, December 22, 2011

With the formal ending of the U.S. war in Iraq on December 15, 2011, the Congressional Research Service has produced an updated report on U.S. Periods of War and Dates of Current Conflicts (pdf).

“Confusion can occur because beginning and ending dates for ‘periods of war’ in many nonofficial sources are often different from those given in treaties and other official sources of information, and armistice dates can be confused with termination dates,” the December 28, 2011 CRS report said.

A different kind of confusion can arise when misleading or mistaken information is presented as fact, as when President Bush declared in a May 1, 2003 address to the nation that “major military combat actions in Iraq have ended.”

The CRS report does not address covert action or other unacknowledged military operations.

Some other noteworthy new or newly updated reports from the Congressional Research Service include the following (all pdf).

Director of National Intelligence Statutory Authorities: Status and Proposals,” December 16, 2011

The National Security Council: An Organizational Assessment, December 28, 2011

Terrorism Information Sharing and the Nationwide Suspicious Activity Report Initiative: Background and Issues for Congress, December 28, 2011

The Army’s Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) and Early Infantry Brigade Combat Team (E-IBCT) Programs: Background and Issues for Congress, December 27, 2011

National Infrastructure Bank: Overview and Current Legislation, December 14, 2011

Drug Offenses: Maximum Fines and Terms of Imprisonment for Violation of the Federal Controlled Substances Act and Related Laws, December 12, 2011

Keystone XL Pipeline Project: Key Issues, December 12, 2011

Recess Appointments: Frequently Asked Questions, December 12, 2011

“Super PACs” in Federal Elections: Overview and Issues for Congress, December 2, 2011

New reports from the Congressional Research Service that have not been made readily available to the public include these (both pdf):

“U.S. Arms Sales: Agreements with and Deliveries to Major Clients, 2003-2010,” December 16, 2011.

“Pakistan: U.S. Foreign Aid Conditions, Restrictions, and Reporting Requirements,” December 15, 2011.