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

“North Korea: Legislative Basis for U.S. Economic Sanctions,” September 29, 2010.

“China’s Sovereign Wealth Fund: Developments and Policy Implications,” September 23, 2010.

“Defense: FY2011 Authorization and Appropriations,” September 17, 2010.

“Federal Conspiracy Law: A Brief Overview,” April 30, 2010.

Noteworthy new reports from the Congressional Research Service include the following (all pdf).

“The Helium-3 Shortage: Supply, Demand, and Options for Congress,” September 21, 2010.

“China’s Steel Industry and Its Impact on the United States: Issues for Congress,” September 21, 2010.

“Authority of State and Local Police to Enforce Federal Immigration Law,” September 17, 2010.

“Statutory Damage Awards in Peer-to-Peer File Sharing Cases Involving Copyrighted Sound Recordings: Recent Legal Developments,” September 16, 2010.

When Wikileaks published tens of thousands of classified U.S. military records concerning the war in Afghanistan last July, did it commit a criminal act under U.S. law?  That was the question posed by a new report (pdf) from the Congressional Research Service.  In the end, the CRS report tentatively concludes that “although unlawful acquisition of information might be subject to criminal prosecution, the publication of that information remains protected.”

What’s more interesting than the report’s ultimate conclusion is its probing treatment of basic questions such as the scope of First Amendment protections, and the application of U.S. law to foreign jurisdictions.

Could the Espionage Act possibly be used against foreigners acting outside the United States?  Remarkably, the CRS report noted that it could.  “The only court that appears to have addressed the question” ruled in 1985 that a citizen of East Germany, Dr. Alfred Zehe, could be prosecuted under the Espionage Act and he was in fact convicted.

On the other hand, could it be that the First Amendment provides protection to foreign publishers?  There doesn’t seem to be a crisp yes or no answer to this question.  But the CRS report, written by national security law specialist Jennifer K. Elsea, turned up a 1964 district court decision which suggested that foreign publishers do enjoy First Amendment rights, if only because American readers have a right to the information that they publish.  “The essence of the First Amendment right to freedom of the press is not so much the right to print as it is the right to read,” that court ruled.  Therefore, “the rights of readers are not to be curtailed because of the geographical origin of printed materials.”

But what about the publication of materials that have been illegally acquired?  That seems to be an open question.  The CRS report cited a 1989 case (Florida Star v. BJF at footnote 8) where the U.S. Supreme Court said that the question of “whether, in cases where information has been acquired unlawfully by a newspaper or by a source, government may ever punish not only the unlawful acquisition, but the ensuing publication as well” is “not definitively resolved.”

The comparatively short (14 page) CRS report, interesting as it is, is necessarily incomplete.

So, for example, it does not grapple in any detail with the legacy of the so-called AIPAC case. Although that case was ultimately dismissed in 2009, the court there upheld the constitutionality of the Espionage Act even when applied to private citizens who do not hold security clearances but who received and transmitted classified defense information without authorization.

Thus, Judge T.S. Ellis III ruled (pdf) in August 2006:  “Although the question whether the government’s interest in preserving its national defense secrets is sufficient to trump the First Amendment rights of those not in a position of trust with the government is a more difficult question, and although the authority addressing this issue is sparse, both common sense and the relevant precedent point persuasively to the conclusion that the government can punish those outside of the government for the unauthorized receipt and deliberate retransmission of information relating to the national defense.”

The CRS report also does not explicitly address 18 U.S.C. 793(g), which is the section of the Espionage Act that pertains to conspiracy.  Under this provision, the criminal offense would not be publication of the restricted records, but collusion with a source to violate the terms of the Espionage Act.  If Wikileaks has violated U.S. law — which remains uncertain — then its liability would likely be centered here.   (The possible relevance of 793g to the Wikileaks case was noted by the pseudonymous Equ Privat in the blog Finem Respice on August 1, and in private correspondence.)

A copy of the CRS report was obtained by Secrecy News.  See “Criminal Prohibitions on the Publication of Classified Defense Information,” Congressional Research Service, September 10, 2010.

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

“The Freedom of Information Act and Nondisclosure Provisions in Other Federal Laws,” September 13, 2010.

“The Role of Trade Secrets in Innovation Policy,” August 31, 2010.

“Regulating Coal Combustion Waste Disposal: Issues for Congress,” September 21, 2010.

“The SPEECH Act: The Federal Response to ‘Libel Tourism’,” September 16.

“The Bush Tax Cuts and the Economy,” September 3, 2010.

“Pakistan is in the midst of a catastrophic natural disaster that has precipitated a humanitarian crisis of major proportions,” a new report (pdf) from the Congressional Research Service observes.  The widespread flooding that has displaced millions of Pakistanis also represents a political crisis that “may undermine the already waning legitimacy of the civilian government” and a security crisis that has “already diverted Pakistani resources and focus away from its struggle with Islamic militants.”

Yet “despite the unprecedented scale of the flood disaster in Pakistan and more than 20 million people affected, aid donations from around the world have been much slower to materialize than other natural disasters such as the earthquake in Haiti,” the CRS said.

Possible reasons for the comparatively limited response include the gradual nature of the flooding, the paucity of press coverage, the limited death toll, Pakistan’s image problem among potential donors, the worldwide recession, and the fact that “the floods occurred in summer when many in western nations are on vacation.”

Under the best of circumstances, however, “International assistance after a catastrophe rarely, if ever, meets the need,” the CRS said.  Meanwhile, the United States government already leads international efforts in emergency relief to Pakistan with total FY2010 aid estimated at nearly $350 million.

The CRS report provides a detailed survey of what is known of the humanitarian, economic and political implications of the flood and the international response to date.

“The long-term effects of the flooding are likely to present daunting challenges to the country. The long-term effects are likely to manifest themselves in two ways that have significance to the United States and Congress. One aspect is the humanitarian toll that is likely to emerge from displaced people, disease, food security, and an economic decline. Another aspect is the strategic concerns that could result from a weakened government, and a dissatisfied and disenfranchised population.”

See “Flooding in Pakistan: Overview and Issues for Congress,” September 21, 2010.

Many charities and relief organizations offer opportunities to contribute to flood relief in Pakistan, including the American Jewish World Service, which highlights the Pakistan crisis on its home page.

An apparent spike in Islamist terrorist plots by American citizens and residents is examined in another new report (pdf) from the Congressional Research Service.

“This report describes homegrown violent jihadists and the plots and attacks that have occurred since 9/11.”  The report uses the term “jihadist” to refer to “radicalized individuals using Islam as an ideological and/or religious justification for their belief in the establishment of a global caliphate.”

The 128-page report describes the radicalization process and the responses of government and law enforcement agencies.  An appendix provides details about each post-9/11 incident of “homegrown jihadist terrorist plots and attacks” while a second appendix describes engagement and partnership activities by federal agencies with Muslim-American communities.  See “American Jihadist Terrorism: Combating a Complex Threat,” September 20, 2010.

Other new reports from CRS include the following (both pdf).

“The Mexican Economy After the Global Financial Crisis,” September 9, 2010.

“Deflation: Economic Significance, Current Risk, and Policy Responses,” August 30, 2010.

Recent reports of the Congressional Research Service on various foreign affairs topics include the following (all pdf), obtained by Secrecy News. CRS does not makes its reports directly available to the public.

“Iraq: Oil and Gas Legislation, Revenue Sharing, and U.S. Policy,” updated July 25, 2007.

“Gangs in Central America,” updated August 2, 2007.

“Afro-Latinos in Latin America and Considerations for U.S. Policy,” updated July 13, 2007.

“Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America: An Overview and Selected Issues,” August 2, 2007.

“Israeli-Arab Negotiations: Background, Conflicts, and U.S. Policy,” updated July 9, 2007.

“Turkey’s 2007 Elections: Crisis of Identity and Power,” updated July 11, 2007.

“The Kaesong North-South Korean Industrial Complex,” July 19, 2007.

“The Proposed South Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA),” updated July 18, 2007.

“Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Political Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests,” updated July 31, 2007.

“Cyprus: Status of U.N. Negotiations and Related Issues,” updated July 20, 2007.

“Pakistan-U.S. Relations,” updated July 23, 2007.

“Cambodia: Background and U.S. Relations,” updated July 18, 2007.

“China-U.S. Trade Issues,” updated July 20, 2007.

“China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities — Background and Issues for Congress,” updated July 20, 2007.

“China/Taiwan: Evolution of the ‘One China’ Policy — Key Statements from Washington, Beijing, and Taipei,” updated July 9, 2007.

“U.S. Clothing and Textile Trade with China and the World: Trends Since the End of Quotas,” July 10, 2007.

“U.S.-Peru Economic Relations and the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement,” July 27, 2007.

“The United Kingdom: Issues for the United States,” updated July 16, 2007.