The next ambassador from Bahrain to the United States will be a Jewish woman named Huda Ezra Ebrahim Nonoo, according to a report in GulfNews.com last week.

“Huda is Bahrain’s nominee for the post and this is of course very good news for Bahrain’s deep-rooted values of tolerance and openness,” said Faisal Fouladh of the Shura Council, the upper house of Bahrain’s legislature. The Shura Council currently includes 11 women, including one Christian.

See “Bahrain set to name Jewish woman envoy” by Habib Toumi, GulfNews, April 25.

Alone among Muslim countries, Bahrain and Bosnia have Jewish diplomats in senior positions, said Stephen S. Schwartz of the Center for Islamic Pluralism.

The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing April 30 on the subject of “secret law.”

“It’s been nearly forty years since Professor Kenneth Davis stated in his seminal treatise on administrative law that ‘Secret law is an abomination’,” according to a Committee announcement.

“The upcoming hearing will examine the extent to which this abomination is gradually becoming a common state of affairs, and its effect on our democracy.”

The hearing will be chaired by Sen. Russ Feingold. I will be testifying, along with J. William Leonard, the former director of the Information Security Oversight Office, and a diverse group of others. See “Secret Law and the Threat to Democratic and Accountable Government.”

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

“Africa Command: U.S. Strategic Interests and the Role of the U.S. Military in Africa,” updated March 10, 2008.

“High Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse (HEMP) and High Power Microwave (HPM) Devices: Threat Assessments,” updated March 26, 2008.

“Second FY2008 Supplemental Appropriations for Military Operations, International Affairs, and Other Purposes,” April 15, 2008.

“Iraq: Regional Perspectives and U.S. Policy,” updated April 4, 2008.

“Operation Iraqi Freedom: Strategies, Approaches, Results, and Issues for Congress,” March 28, 2008.

“Major U.S. Arms Sales and Grants to Pakistan Since 2001” (fact sheet), updated April 23, 2008.

“Pakistan-U.S. Relations,” updated March 27, 2008.

“Presidential Claims of Executive Privilege: History, Law, Practice and Recent Developments,” updated April 16, 2008.

“The 2008-2009 election marks the first presidential transition in the post-9/11 era, and is of concern to many national security observers,” a new report (pdf) from the Congressional Research Service says.

“While changes in administration during U.S. involvement in national security related activities are not unique to the 2008-2009 election, many observers suggest that the current security climate and recent acts of terrorism by individuals wishing to influence national elections and change foreign policies portend a time of increased risk to the current presidential transition period.”

“This report discusses historical national-security related presidential transition activities, provides a representative sampling of national security issues the next administration may encounter, and offers considerations and options relevant to each of the five phases of the presidential transition period.”

See “2008-2009 Presidential Transition: National Security Considerations and Options,” April 21, 2008.

Meanwhile, “A growing community of interest, including Members of Congress, senior officials in the executive branch, and think-tank analysts, is calling for a reexamination of how well the U.S. government, including both the executive branch and Congress, is organized to apply all instruments of national power to national security activities,” according to another new CRS report (pdf).

“The organizations and procedures used today to formulate strategy, support presidential decision-making, plan and execute missions, and budget for those activities are based on a framework established just after World War II.”

“The ‘outdated bureaucratic superstructure’ of the 20th century is an inadequate basis for protecting the nation from 21st century security challenges, critics contend, and the system itself, or alternatively, some of its key components, requires revision.”

The new CRS report is intended “to help frame the emerging debates by taking note of the leading advocates for change, highlighting identified shortcomings in key elements of the current system, and describing categories of emerging proposals for change.”

See “Organizing the U.S. Government for National Security: Overview of the Interagency Reform Debates,” April 18, 2008.

The Congressional Research Service, acting at the direction of Congress, does not make its publications directly available to the public.

The basic structures and procedures of science and technology policymaking are presented in detail in a new report from the Congressional Research Service. See “Science and Technology Policymaking: A Primer” (pdf), April 18, 2008.

Other noteworthy new reports from the Congressional Research Service that have not been made readily available online include the following (all pdf).

“Information Security and Data Breach Notification Safeguards,” updated April 3, 2008.

“Congressional Oversight of Intelligence: Current Structure and Alternatives,” updated April 1, 2008.

“Data Mining and Homeland Security: An Overview,” updated April 3, 2008.

“Security Implications of Taiwan’s Presidential Election of March 2008,” April 4, 2008.

The implications of the expanded use of “national security letters” by the FBI and other agencies to compel disclosure of business record information will be explored in a hearing tomorrow before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

For an introduction to the subject see “National Security Letters in Foreign Intelligence Investigations: Legal Background and Recent Amendments” (pdf), Congressional Research Service, updated March 28, 2008.

Next week on April 30, Sen. Russ Feingold will chair a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing on “Secret Law and the Threat to Democratic and Accountable Government.”

A memorandum of understanding (pdf) signed this month by the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Archivist is expected to enable the transfer of many permanently valuable historical CIA records that are 50 years old or older to the custody of the National Archives (NARA), officials of both agencies said today.

Up to now, “we haven’t had a framework” for such transfers, said Joe Lambert, the new CIA chief information officer. And so, with few exceptions, “we haven’t transferred anything [to the Archives] in the past.” (Exceptions include certain CIA records related to the JFK assassination, Nazi war crimes, and a few other topics, as well as translations of foreign news reports.)

The new memorandum “lays the groundwork for routine transfer of CIA records” to the National Archives once they become 50 years old, said Assistant Archivist Michael J. Kurtz. “This will institutionalize the process.”

The memorandum itself does not seem very promising. It imposes a number of binding requirements on NARA officials, including referral to CIA of any request for records that have not already been approved for public release. No binding requirements are imposed on CIA, beyond an open-ended commitment to “review” any such requests.

But Allen Weinstein, the Archivist of the United States, said the memorandum would pave the way for regular transfers of CIA records to the Archives, and would ultimately result in improved public access to those records.

“Access is a multi-step process,” said Gary M. Stern, General Counsel at the National Archives. “Getting the records into the Archives is the first step.”

Having “listened carefully to the words and the music, I was convinced that this [agreement] would serve the public interest,” said Dr. Weinstein. “I wouldn’t have signed it otherwise.”

The memorandum’s words, at least, can be found here.

CIA is expected to provide to NARA an index of records subject to transfer in the next few weeks, with actual transfers to follow sometime thereafter.

A March 2000 National Archives evaluation of “Records Management in the Central Intelligence Agency” provided some detailed insight into the subject.

At that time, NARA held that “CIA retention of permanent files for 50 years is no longer appropriate” and should be reduced to something closer to 30 years. But by default and inaction, 50 year retention of records by CIA has now become the goal that the agencies are striving for.

William J. Bosanko was formally named this week as the fourth director of the Information Security Oversight Offfice, the executive branch agency that is responsible for oversight of national security classification and declassification policy government-wide. A ten-year veteran of the ISOO staff, Mr. Bosanko shares an understanding of the ideals and the realities of classification as well as the scruple and the responsiveness that made his predecessors such remarkable public servants.

“When I am president, the era of Bush/Cheney secrecy will be over,” said Sen. Hillary Clinton in a speech to the Newspaper Association of America on April 15. “I will empower the federal government to operate from a presumption of openness, not secrecy… I will direct my administration to prevent needless classification of information that ought to be shared with the public.”

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) this week introduced a new bill to increase transparency in government agency expenditures, to provide online public tracking of legislative earmarks, and to require the IRS to provide taxpayers with statements of total taxes paid and projected. “This latest effort will provide taxpayers unprecedented information about how their money is spent, and how their taxes are paid. Increasing transparency in government spending is essential for accountability and fiscal responsibility.”

The CIA today published for public comment a proposed rule modifying its Freedom of Information Act procedures. “The Agency proposes to revise its FOIA regulations to more clearly reflect the current CIA organizational structure, record system configuration, and FOIA policies and practices and to eliminate ambiguous, redundant and obsolete regulatory provisions.”

Prodded by a request from the Federation of American Scientists, the U.S. Marine Corps recently restored online public access to many of its doctrinal publications, Federal Computer Week reported on March 27.

One of those Marine Corps documents addresses war crimes (pdf), describing prohibited actions and the need to prevent them.

“While we Marines fight swiftly and aggressively, we also conduct our military operations with respect toward both the liberated people and the vanquished foe.”

“Marines do not harm enemy soldiers who surrender. Marines do not torture or kill enemy prisoners of war or detainees. Marines collect and care for the wounded, whether friend or foe.”

See “War Crimes,” Marine Corps Reference Publication 4-11.8B, 6 September 2005.

Another document is a 1990 analysis of weather patterns in the Persian Gulf (pdf).

“While some of the technical information in this manual is of use mainly to meteorologists, much of the information is invaluable to anyone who wishes to predict the consequences of changes in the season or weather on military operations.”

See “The Persian Gulf Region: A Climatological Study,” Fleet Marine Force Reference Publication 0-54, 19 October 1990.

Testimony from classification expert J. William Leonard, the former director of the Information Security Oversight Office, will “seriously undercut the government’s case” against two former officials of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) who are charged with unlawful receipt and transmission of classified information, defense attorneys argued in a dramatic new pleading (pdf) urging that he be allowed to testify.

Prosecutors oppose Mr. Leonard’s testimony, saying it is precluded by his prior contacts with the prosecution.

The closely-watched AIPAC case is the first time that the government has ever used the espionage statutes to prosecute private citizens — pro-Israel lobbyists in this case — for receiving classified information to which they were not entitled and then communicating it to others.

“Mr. Leonard’s expert testimony is critical to the defense,” the defense pleading stated. “As the government’s former ‘Classification Czar,’ he has unsurpassed expertise in the issues involved in this case, and his insights into how and why the government classifies, protects, and discloses sensitive information squarely refute the prosecution’s theory of the case.”

The government has opposed Mr. Leonard’s testimony, citing a meeting he had in 2006 with prosecutors regarding the case while he was still a government employee and was being considered as a witness for the prosecution.

(“My impression from the interview was that they did not like what I had to say, especially about over-classification, and decided not to use me as an expert,” Mr. Leonard stated in an affidavit.)

For him to now testify as a defense witness, prosecutors argued, would be a violation of the Ethics in Government Act and, they insinuated, could even put him at risk of criminal prosecution.

To resolve any lingering legal uncertainty, the defense asked the court to issue an order authorizing Mr. Leonard to testify.

“Mr. Leonard has carefully examined the classified information at issue in this case,” the defense filing indicated. If and when he is permitted to appear, Mr. Leonard will testify “that information disclosed in this case could not damage national security, was not closely held, and was not demonstrably classified.”

Further, Mr. Leonard will testify “that high level government officials frequently disclose information contained in classified documents for the purpose of advancing national security interests instead of harming them,” and that “the defendants reasonably could have believed that their conduct was appropriate.”

“Given Mr. Leonard’s unsurpassed expertise, his testimony is likely to impact the outcome of the trial,” the defense said.

However, defendants need an order from the court “to ensure that Mr. Leonard can testify safely, particularly in light of the government’s shot across the bow regarding Mr. Leonard’s potential criminal liability [if he testifies for the defense].”

See the Defendants’ Reply to the Government’s Opposition to the Expert Witness Testimony of J. William Leonard, April 11, 2008.

Among the potential expert witnesses for the prosecution is William McNair, a former Information Review Officer at the Central Intelligence Agency known for his conservative approach to declassification and disclosure.

A pre-trial appeal of several district court rulings in the AIPAC case has been filed by the government, as well as a cross-appeal filed by the defense. This month’s anticipated trial was postponed and no new trial date has been set.

Some unauthorized disclosures of classified information in the press can serve a constructive purpose, Sen. John McCain allowed. And so he expressed support for a pending press “shield” law that would increase reporters’ legal protection against compulsory disclosure of their confidential sources.

“Despite concerns I have about the legislation, I have narrowly decided to support it,” he told the Associated Press Annual Meeting on April 14.

The bill, the Free Flow of Information Act, is co-sponsored by Sen. Barack Obama and has also been endorsed by Sen. Hillary Clinton. But Sen. McCain’s support is noteworthy because it places him directly at odds with the Bush Administration, which strongly opposes the measure.

Even more interesting is the way in which McCain framed the issue:

“The shield law is, frankly, a license to do harm, perhaps serious harm. But it is also a license to do good; to disclose injustice and unlawfulness and inequities; and to encourage their swift correction.”

“I know that the press that disclosed security secrets that should have remained so also revealed the disgrace of Abu Ghraib.”

In other words, according to Sen. McCain, there are bad leaks of classified information and there are good leaks of classified information. (The leaked Army investigative report on Abu Ghraib [pdf] was classified Secret).

This comparatively nuanced view of unauthorized disclosures is a significant departure from the Bush Administration’s categorical view that any disclosure of classified information is unacceptable. And it provides some common ground for considering both disclosure and voluntary non-disclosure of classified information by the press.

The text of Sen. McCain’s April 14 speech is here.

The Washington Post editorialized today in favor of the press shield bill, which is also supported by press advocacy organizations such as the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Jack Shafer in Slate.com demurred.

The latest edition of Nieman Reports, the quarterly magazine of the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard, is devoted to the subject of “21st Century Muckrakers: Who Are They? How Do They Do Their Work?”

It’s a meaty and highly readable issue. I contributed a piece on “Secrecy vs. Citizenship.” Ted Gup, author of the recent book “Nation of Secrets,” has another piece on “Investigative Reporting About Secrecy.” Walter Pincus of the Washington Post wrote “Secrets and the Press,” a review of the Gup book. And there’s a lot more.

See the latest Nieman Reports, edited by Melissa Ludtke, here.