It is the policy of the United States to develop medical countermeasures that could be used in response to an attack involving chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons, according to a new Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD-18) issued by President Bush on Medical Countermeasures Against Weapons of Mass Destruction.

A bill introduced in the House of Representatives would “prohibit the use of funds to carry out any covert action for the purpose of causing regime change in Iran or to carry out any military action against Iran in the absence of an imminent threat….”

The U.S. Navy says that its declassification programs are on track to meet all current and future milestones, according to a January 24, 2007 briefing (pdf) to the Secretary of the Navy Declassification Oversight Committee.

The American Library Association is seeking nominations for its James Madison Award, presented to “individuals or groups that have championed, protected, and promoted public access to government information and the public’s right to know.”

Ulysses, a joint NASA-European Space Agency spacecraft launched in 1990, passed beneath the south pole of the Sun yesterday (at a distance of 200 million miles).

In an extraordinary internal challenge to the unruly Office of the Vice President (OVP), the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) has formally petitioned the Attorney General to direct the OVP to comply with a requirement that executive branch organizations disclose statistics on their classification and declassification activity to ISOO.

For the last three years, Vice President Cheney’s office has refused to divulge its classification statistics to ISOO, despite a seemingly explicit requirement that it do so. Prior to 2002, such information had routinely been transmitted and reported in ISOO’s annual reports to the President.

The disclosure requirement appears in ISOO Directive 1 (at section 2001.80): “Each agency that creates or handles classified information shall report annually to the Director of ISOO statistics related to its security classification program.”

Such ISOO directives “shall be binding upon the agencies,” President Bush wrote in Executive Order 13292 (section 5.1). Significantly, an “agency” here means not only a statutorily-defined executive branch agency (which would not include the OVP), but also refers to “any other entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information” (which would include the OVP).

Last May, the Federation of American Scientists urged ISOO to press for the Vice President’s compliance.

“Since the Office of the Vice President has publicly staked out a position that openly defies the plain language of the executive order, ISOO now has a responsibility to clarify the matter,” we wrote (pdf) at that time. “Otherwise, every agency will feel free to re-interpret the order in idiosyncratic and self-serving ways.”

This week ISOO indicated that it was actively pursuing the matter.

“With respect to the question you raised, I was unsuccessful in achieving a common understanding with OVP,” wrote ISOO director J. William Leonard in a February 5 email message.

“Accordingly, in early January, pursuant to section 6.2(b), Executive Order 12958, as amended, I wrote the Attorney General requesting that he render an interpretation on the issue,” he wrote.

(Section 6.2(b) of the executive order states that “The Attorney General, upon request by the head of an agency or the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office, shall render an interpretation of this order with respect to any question arising in the course of its administration.”)

“I have not received a reply to this request as of yet,” Mr. Leonard wrote.

He declined to provide a copy of his January letter to the Attorney General, explaining that it is pre-decisional.

The Justice Department has been asked at least once before to resolve a dispute over implementation of the executive order on classification.

In 1999, the Central Intelligence Agency refused to accept the jurisdiction of the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel over Agency classification activity. But the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel issued a ruling in October 1999 that the CIA classification decisions were indeed subject to ISCAP review. That state of affairs was modified by President Bush in 2003, when he effectively gave the Director of Central Intelligence a veto over ISCAP decisions.

A U.S. Army manual on psychological operations (pdf) elaborates upon the role of PSYOP in military activities.

“The employment of any element of national power, particularly the military element, has always had a psychological dimension. Foreign perceptions of U.S. military capabilities are fundamental to strategic deterrence. The effectiveness of deterrence hinges on U.S. ability to influence the perceptions of others.”

“The purpose of PSYOP is to induce or reinforce foreign attitudes and behavior favorable to U.S. national objectives… When properly employed, PSYOP can save lives of friendly and adversary forces by reducing the adversaries’ will to fight. By lowering adversary morale and reducing their efficiency, PSYOP can also discourage aggressive actions and create dissidence and disaffection within their ranks, ultimately inducing surrender.”

The 179 page manual has not been approved for public release, but a copy was obtained by Secrecy News.

See “Psychological Operations,” Field Manual FM 3-05.30, April 2005.

Secrecy News was sad to learn that Lee S. Strickland, a former Central Intelligence Agency official, died on January 23.

We first encountered him perhaps 15 years ago when he was the head of the CIA Freedom of Information office, where he used to reliably deny our FOIA requests. Over the years he seemed to enlarge his horizons and to admit the possibility of contrasting views. He taught his students at the University of Maryland that information policy could be exciting as well as important. And he was a nice guy.

See this obituary for Lee Strickland from the University of Maryland College of Information Studies.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) “continues to receive information on terrorist threats to the U.S. aviation industry and to the Western aviation industry worldwide,” according to a May 2006 DHS threat assessment (pdf) that was partially released last week.

Yet “an independent assault at the Los Angeles International Airport in July 2002 that left two dead and four wounded near the El Al ticket counter remains the sole successful aviation-related terrorist attack within the United States since 11 September 2001,” the document noted.

Approximately two-thirds of the unclassified DHS aviation threat assessment was withheld from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. But all of the endnotes were disclosed, including open source references to remotely piloted vehicles, lasers, parachutes and shoulder-fired missiles.

See “Strategic Sector Assessment: U.S. Aviation,” DHS Homeland Infrastructure Threat & Risk Analysis Center (HITRAC), 18 May 2006 (redacted for public release).

The U.S. Navy has issued updated instructions on the use of nicknames to refer to Navy activities, events and other information.

“A nickname is a combination of two separate unclassified words, assigned an unclassified meaning that is employed for unclassified, administrative, morale, or public information purposes. Nicknames may be assigned to actual, real-world events, projects, movement of forces, or other non-exercise activities,” the new policy states.

“Nicknames should not be confused with code words. A code word is a single word assigned a classified meaning by appropriate authority to ensure proper security concerning intentions and to safeguard information pertaining to actual, real-world military plans or operations classified as CONFIDENTIAL or higher once activated.”

The choice of nicknames should not “express a degree of aggression inconsistent with traditional American ideals or current foreign policy.” Nor should it “convey anything offensive to good taste or derogatory to a particular group, sect, or creed.”

See “Code Word, Nicknames, and Exercise Terminology System” (pdf), OPNAVINST 5511.37D, January 30, 2007.

A dictionary of thousands of code words, nicknames and related terms was compiled by Bill Arkin in Code Names, published in 2005.

Noncombatant evacuation operations are addressed in a new doctrinal publication (pdf) from the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

“Noncombatant evacuation operations (NEOs) are conducted to assist the Department of State (DOS) in evacuating US citizens, Department of Defense (DOD) civilian personnel, and designated host nation (HN) and third country nationals whose lives are in danger from locations in a foreign nation to an appropriate safe haven.”

As generic doctrine, the 169-page document contains but a single passing reference to Iraq, and does not address the question of U.S. obligations toward Iraqi non-combatants.

See “Noncombatant Evacuation Operations,” Joint Publication 3-68, January 22, 2007.

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

“U.S. Strategic and Defense Relationships in the Asia-Pacific Region,” January 22, 2007.

“Kinetic Energy Kill for Ballistic Missile Defense: A Status Overview,” updated January 5, 2007.

“Afghan Refugees: Current Status and Future Prospects,” January 26, 2007.

“Chemical Facility Security: Regulation and Issues for Congress,” January 31, 2007.

“Islamist Extremism in Bangladesh,” January 31, 2007.

U.S. Government-funded non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that work to advance civil society in developing countries are encountering new obstacles that impede their progress, according to a recent staff study for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

“Increasingly, governments around the world have tightened their controls on foreign NGOs by passing laws to restrict their ability to work independently from government approval,” wrote Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) in a transmittal letter.

There is a “backlash against democracy assistance,” as the National Endowment for Democracy put it in another study, which is appended to the pdf version of the Senate report.

“In extreme cases, democracy promoters are being harassed by authorities. In some nations governments have been able to persuade their citizens that the work of NGOs and the financial assistance provided to them by the USG is a form of American interventionism,” Sen. Lugar observed.

“Thus, in some countries opposition to pro-democracy NGOs is cast as a reaffirmation of sovereignty,” he wrote.

The new Senate study assessed the current status of programs in Africa, Asia, Central Europe and Latin America, and proposed principles and recommendations to guide further work of this kind.

See “Nongovernmental Organizations and Democracy Promotion,” Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff report, December 22, 2006.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has issued new doctrine (pdf) on the conduct of electronic warfare.

“The recognized need for military forces to have unimpeded access to and use of the [electromagnetic environment] creates vulnerabilities and opportunities for electronic warfare (EW) in support of military operations.”

“The purpose of EW is to deny the opponent an advantage in the EM spectrum and ensure friendly unimpeded access to the EM spectrum portion of the information environment.”

“EW can be applied from air, sea, land, and space by manned and unmanned systems.”

See “Electronic Warfare,” Joint Publication JP 3-13.1, 25 January 2007.

The constitutional allocation of war powers between Congress and the President and the authority of Congress to restrict ongoing military operations are considered in a new report from the Congressional Research Service.

See “Congressional Authority To Limit U.S. Military Operations in Iraq” (pdf), January 29, 2007.

A related study on “Congressional Use of Funding Cutoffs Since 1970 Involving U.S. Military Forces and Overseas Deployments” was updated on January 16, 2007.

Also new (or newly updated) from CRS are these:

“Germany’s Relations with Israel: Background and Implications for German Middle East Policy,” January 19, 2007.

“North Korean Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States,” updated January 3, 2007.

The Office of the Vice President under Dick Cheney seems to cultivate secrecy as an end in itself, and not simply to protect national security or personal privacy. The OVP will not even confirm how many staff people work there, who they are, or much of anything else.

“Cheney’s office refuses to give any details to reporters,” observed Justin Rood in TPMmuckraker yesterday, noting further that the OVP “is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act, so any such request would be futile.”

Similarly, a Cheney spokesman recently told reporter Laura Rozen, “If we have a personnel announcement we’d like you to know about, we’ll tell you.”

Some Americans still find this willful obscurity offensive to democratic principles, and TPMmuckraker summoned the blogosphere to help pierce the veil.

Secrecy News was able to contribute a 2004 telephone directory for the OVP (pdf), which is marked “for official use only,” naturally. Though it is no longer current — it still lists the departed Scooter Libby as assistant to the Vice President, for example — it provides a good sense of the size and structure of the OVP. It is posted here (with phone and fax numbers redacted by Secrecy News).

See further discussion of the matter on TPMmuckraker here and on The Carpet Bagger Report here.