Earlier this year, the Department of Defense released two annual reports on the status of its chemical and biological defense efforts (both pdf):

“Department of Defense Chemical and Biological Defense Program,” Annual Report to Congress, April 2007.

“Report on Activities and Programs for Countering Proliferation and NBC Terrorism,” Counterproliferation Program Review Committee, Volume I, Executive Summary, May 2007.

Recent reports of the Congressional Research Service on the 2008 budget appropriation cycle obtained by Secrecy News include the following (all pdf).

“Homeland Security Department: FY2008 Appropriations,” updated July 17, 2007.

“Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2008,” updated July 26, 2007.

“Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies: FY2008 Appropriations,” July 20, 2007.

“Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2008 Appropriations,” updated July 20, 2007.

“Energy and Water Development: FY2008 Appropriations,” updated July 13, 2007.

The espionage statutes concerning classified information could be employed against journalists who publish such information without authorization, a Justice Department official told Congress recently, elaborating on remarks made last year by Attorney General Gonzales.

Those statutes, “on their face, do not provide an exemption for any particular profession or class of persons, including journalists,” wrote Matthew W. Friedrich, DoJ Criminal Division Chief of Staff, in a March 2007 response to questions (pdf) from the Senate Judiciary Committee that has been newly published.

He stressed that “the Justice Department’s primary focus has been and will continue to be investigating and prosecuting leakers, not members of the press.”

But he added that “it would be inappropriate to comment on whether the Department is now considering the prosecution of journalists for publishing classified information.”

The congressional correspondence touched on several issues that are new or rarely addressed.

“What about conduct that is incidental to a journalist publishing a story,” asked Senator Pat Leahy, “such as retaining classified documents that may be used later in a story, or communicating such information to a publisher or other reporters in the course of writing a story?”

The legality of these activities would “depend on the particular facts and circumstances,” Mr. Friedrich replied. “It would be inappropriate to offer an advisory opinion about the legality of such conduct.”

Could improper or unnecessary classification be used as a defense against prosecution? “We are aware of no case that affirmatively holds that such a defense is available to defendants in Espionage Act cases,” Mr. Friedrich wrote. And he cited one Ninth Circuit decision that said that “under section 798 [one of the espionage statutes], the propriety of the classification is irrelevant.”

He disclosed that “over the past five years, the Department has approved search warrants for materials related to the news gathering process… in four cases.” These were not specified.

Mr. Friedrich’s answers to questions for the record from Senators Specter and Leahy, transmitted March 1, 2007, are posted here.

They were recently published in the record of a June 6, 2006 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing entitled “Examining DOJ’s Investigation of Journalists Who Publish Classified Information: Lessons from the Jack Anderson Case.”

Director of National Intelligence J.M. McConnell has issued new Intelligence Community Directives on standards for intelligence analysis and on document exploitation.

“Analysts and managers should provide objective assessments informed by available information that are not distorted or altered with the intent of supporting or advocating a particular policy, political viewpoint, or audience,” the DNI instructed. See “Analytical Standards” (pdf), Intelligence Community Directive 203, June 21, 2007.

Meanwhile, a new interagency DNI Center called the National Media Exploitation Center “will serve to advance the IC’s collective DOMEX [document and media exploitation] capabilities on behalf of the DNI.” See “Document and Media Exploitation” (pdf), ICD 302, July 6, 2007.

Also new is “National Intelligence Board” (pdf), ICD 202, July 16, 2007.

The U.S. Army Ranger Handbook, updated last year, provides an introduction to this branch of Army special operations forces, with a mixture of history, lore, doctrine, operational guidance and survival tips.

“Tell the truth about what you see and what you do,” advised a historic Ranger document from 1759, reprinted in the current Handbook. “There is an army depending on us for correct information. You can lie all you please when you tell other folks about the Rangers, but don’t never lie to a Ranger or officer.”

See “Ranger Handbook,” U.S. Army, July 2006.

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

“Defense: FY2008 Authorization and Appropriations,” updated July 30, 2007.

“Africa Command: U.S. Strategic Interests and the Role of the U.S. Military in Africa,” updated July 6, 2007.

“Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) Status for Russia and U.S.-Russian Economic Ties,” updated July 10, 2007.

“Judicial Security: Responsibilities and Current Issues,” updated July 9, 2007.

“Judicial Security: Comparison of Legislation in the 110th Congress,” updated July 11, 2007.

“Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Political Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests,” updated July 12, 2007.

For the first time since it began debating the issue more than three decades ago, Congress is now poised to adopt legislation that will require — not merely recommend — public disclosure of the total national intelligence budget.

“Not later than 30 days after the end of each fiscal year beginning with fiscal year 2007, the Director of National Intelligence shall disclose to the public the aggregate amount of funds appropriated by Congress for the National Intelligence Program for such fiscal year,” states the House-Senate conference agreement on H.R. 1 (section 601), the massive bill to implement recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

Excerpts from the conference report concerning intelligence budget disclosure, declassification and related issues are posted here.

The conference bill has already been approved in the Senate and is expected to win final approval in the House as early as today.

If enacted into law, it would lead to the first authorized disclosure of current U.S. intelligence spending since the aggregate budgets were disclosed in 1997 ($26.6 billion) and 1998 ($26.7 billion) in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by the Federation of American Scientists. (Those figures included spending on “national” as well as “tactical” intelligence.)

The Bush White House has expressed opposition to intelligence budget disclosure but is not expected to veto the entire 9/11 bill on that basis.

“The Administration strongly opposes the requirement in the bill to publicly disclose sensitive information about the intelligence budget,” according to a February 28 statement of administration policy (pdf).

“Disclosure, including disclosure to the Nation’s enemies and adversaries in a time of war, of the amounts requested by the President and provided by the Congress for the conduct of the Nation’s intelligence activities would provide no meaningful information to the general American public, but would provide significant intelligence to America’s adversaries and could cause damage to the national security interests of the United States.”

Hardly anyone agrees with that assessment.

The bipartisan 9/11 Commission came to almost the opposite conclusion: “The top-line figure by itself provides little insight into U.S. intelligence sources and methods…. But when even aggregate categorical numbers remain hidden, it is hard to judge priorities and foster accountability.” (Final Report, p. 416)

In a compromise with Administration opponents, the House-Senate conference agreed that, beginning in 2009, the President could waive the disclosure requirement by submitting a statement to Congress that budget disclosure in that particular year could damage national security. The legislation does not allow for a waiver in 2007 or 2008.

The conference legislation also includes provisions to strengthen the Public Interest Declassification Board, and to require declassification of the executive summary of a CIA Inspector General report on events leading up to 9/11.

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

“U.N. Convention Against Torture (CAT): Overview and Application to Interrogation Techniques,” updated January 12, 2007.

“Zimbabwe: Current Issues,” updated June 21, 2007.

“Haiti: Developments and U.S. Policy Since 1991 and Current Congressional Concerns,” updated June 21, 2007.

“Japan’s Currency Intervention: Policy Issues,” updated July 13, 2007.

“Kosovo and U.S. Policy: Background and Current Issues,” updated July 3, 2007.

“Kosovo’s Future Status and U.S. Policy,” updated July 12, 2007.

“Federal Crime Control: Background, Legislation, and Issues,” updated June 12, 2007.

“Sea-Based Ballistic Missile Defense — Background and Issues for Congress,” updated June 26, 2007.

Republican Congressman Dave Reichert (R-WA) is interested in developing legislation to streamline the classification system and to eliminate abuses, according to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

Reichert uses personal experience as a benchmark for how overzealous classification can gum up the works and deny important information to those who need it. While investigating the Green River Killer as King County sheriff, Reichert worked closely with a variety of federal agencies and especially the FBI.

In one instance, he and an FBI agent jointly interviewed a witness. Later, Reichert asked the FBI for a copy of its report on the interrogation to compare it with his own account to see if there was anything he missed.

The request was denied because the report was classified, Reichert said in an interview.

“There’s a fear by federal agencies that if they let too much out, it could cause problems,” Reichert said. The irony, he and others say, is that indiscriminately classifying material as secret weakens security because it makes it harder to discern the truly important from those undeserving documents given the status.

Reichert hopes to develop legislation to streamline and simplify the system to lessen the abuses and to make it easier for government officials at all levels, and especially law enforcement, to be able to share information.

See “Government is overzealous with secrecy, Reichert says” by Charles Pope, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, July 26.

A major new report (pdf) from the Congressional Research Service provides a detailed account of Congress’s contempt power, including the use of contempt proceedings to coerce compliance with congressional demands for information or testimony and to punish non-compliance.

“This report examines the source of the contempt power, reviews the historical development of the early case law, outlines the statutory and common law basis for Congress’s contempt power, and analyzes the procedures associated with each of the three different types of contempt proceedings. In addition, the report discusses limitations both nonconstitutional and constitutionally based on the power.”

The 68-page report also examines the Justice Department position that “Congress cannot, as a matter of statutory or constitutional law, invoke either its inherent contempt authority or the criminal contempt of Congress procedures against an executive branch official acting on instructions by the President to assert executive privilege in response to a congressional subpoena.”

See “Congress’s Contempt Power: Law, History, Practice, and Procedure,” July 24, 2007.

Recently updated reports of the Congressional Research Service that have not been made readily available to the public include these (all pdf).

“Supreme Court Appointment Process: Roles of the President, Judiciary Committee, and Senate,” updated June 25, 2007.

“U.S.-Japan Economic Relations: Significance, Prospects, and Policy Options,” updated July 9, 2007.

“Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program: Oversight Issues and Options for Congress,” updated June 11, 2007.

“U.S. Army and Marine Corps Equipment Requirements: Background and Issues for Congress,” updated June 15, 2007.

“Pakistan: Significant Recent Events, March 26 – June 21, 2007,” July 6, 2007.

“Ballistic Missile Defense: Historical Overview,” updated July 9, 2007.

The U.S. Senate is placing increased emphasis on exposing corruption and profiteering in military contracting in Iraq.

Last week, Sen. James Webb (D-VA) introduced a bill with twenty co-sponsors that would establish a Commission on Wartime Contracting to investigate fraud and abuse in government contracts, including intelligence contracts, in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.

“We are outsourcing this war in ways we’ve never seen,” said Sen. Webb. “Defrauding the government of millions of taxpayer dollars should not be considered ‘the cost of doing business’.”

There are now more contractors (180,000) than military personnel (156, 247) in Iraq, according to a July 18 news release from Sen. Webb. A list of companies contracted in support of Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom does not exist, it said. Nor has information on how much the government is paying contractors been made available.

The Senate Judiciary Committee recently held a hearing on “war profiteering,” the record of which has just been published. See “Combating War Profiteering: Are We Doing Enough to Investigate and Prosecute Contracting Fraud and Abuse in Iraq?,” March 20, 2007.