The U.S. Army yesterday issued an updated manual to assist soldiers in identifying aircraft on the battlefield so as to determine whether they are friendly, hostile or something else.

“Soldiers must be knowledgeable in the identification of all types of aerial platforms ranging from fixed wing attack aircraft to unmanned aircraft (UA), in order to protect friendly forces and to prevent fratricide.”

The task is easier said than done, however, even for an experienced observer.

The new manual characterizes the wing, engine, fuselage, and tail (or WEFT) of “a multitude of both hostile and friendly aircraft platforms.”

But due to national security classification, the catalog of aircraft is incomplete.

“This publication, by nature, has a built-in time lag, and some aircraft may still be under development or classified at the time of writing, but may be fielded or unclassified at, or after, publication.”

See Visual Aircraft Recognition, TC 3-01.80, February 29, 2016.

The new edition of the manual was released by the Army for unlimited public distribution. The 2006 manual that it replaces (FM 3-01.80), by contrast, was intended only for U.S. government agencies and contractors.

The Department of Energy last month issued new guidance on the conduct of classified scientific research involving human subjects.

While all human subject research is governed by federal regulations, the new DOE policy imposes several additional requirements whenever such research is to be performed on a classified basis.

For example, the proposed classified research must be reviewed and approved in advance by an Institutional Review Board, and the Board must include a non-scientist member and a member who is not a governmental employee (though he or she must hold a security clearance for this purpose). Also, the normal requirement for informed consent by the human subject cannot be waived.

See Protection of Human Subjects in Classified Research, DOE Notice N 443.1, approved January 21, 2016.

The nature of any such classified human subject research was not described. Speculatively, it might include certain types of research related to polygraph testing or other deception detection techniques. In the past, the Atomic Energy Commission notoriously carried out radiation experiments on unwitting human subjects, and the Central Intelligence Agency conducted behavior modification experiments involving drugs and other stimuli.

It seems that DOE today does little classified human subject research at its own initiative. Rather, “Almost all of the classified [DOE] human subjects research is done on behalf of other Federal sponsors under full cost recovery,” according to a related 2015 DOE memorandum.

The new DOE guidance was prepared after Department attorneys determined last year that a 1997 policy issued by President Bill Clinton was still in effect and applicable to DOE and its contractors. See Strengthened Protections for Human Subjects of Classified Research, March 27, 1997.

Department of Defense policy on classified research involving human subjects is set forth in Protection of Human Subjects and Adherence to Ethical Standards in DoD-Supported Research, DoD Instruction 3216.02, November 8, 2011.

Of possible related interest, the National Declassification Center announced today that 37 cubic feet of classified subject files from the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) had been declassified and made available to researchers.

Changes in the cyber threat environment require the Army to be able to rapidly reprogram its own military software, a newly updated Army Regulation directs.

“Warfare is rapidly moving into a new domain: cyberspace. This will affect warfighting in all domains, and the Army will take measures to adapt to the cyberspace environment.”

“This increased responsiveness demands shortened timelines to combat enemy threats as they adapt to new technology and to new methods of employment.”

“RSR [Rapid Software Reprogramming] will be required to become even more adaptive, automated, and integrated with weapons systems operating in the EMS [electromagnetic spectrum].”

“This policy gives the Army a process which enables soldiers a reach-back RSR capability that will assist commanders to attain tactical superiority, achieve surprise, gain and retain the initiative, maintain awareness of new and emerging threats, and obtain decisive results…,” the unclassified Regulation said.

The Assistant Secretary of the Army (ALT) will “Ensure that sensor-based weapons and CEMA [Cyber Electromagnetic Activities] systems are developed using software reprogrammable signature detection, classification, and response capabilities that can be responsive and enabling to EW [Electronic Warfare], spectrum management and cyber operations.”

See Software Reprogramming for Cyber Electromagnetic Activities, Army Regulation 525-15, 19 February 2016.

Does the U.S. military have too many senior officers in its ranks?

A new report from the Congressional Research Service does not answer that question, but it explains why the question could arise, and provides relevant background for addressing it.

“While always very small in comparison to the total force, the general and flag officer (GFO) corps has increased as a percentage of the total force over the past five decades.”

“GFOs made up about one-twentieth of one percent (0.048%) of the total force in 1965, while they made up about one-fifteenth of one percent (0.069%) of the total force in 2015, indicating that the share of the total force made up of GFOs increased by 43%.”

“Some argue that this increased proportion of GFOs is wasteful and contributes to more bureaucratic decisionmaking processes. Others counter that the increased proportion is linked to the military’s greater emphasis on joint and coalition operations, core organizational requirements, and the increasing use of advanced technologies.”

“This report provides an overview of active duty GFOs in the United States Armed Forces–including authorizations, duties, and compensation–historical trends in the proportion of GFOs relative to the total force, criticisms and justifications of GFO to total force proportions, and statutory controls.”

See General and Flag Officers in the U.S. Armed Forces: Background and Considerations for Congress, February 18, 2016.

Other new and updated reports from the Congressional Research Service that Congress has withheld from public release include the following.

Encryption and Evolving Technology: Implications for U.S. Law Enforcement Investigations, updated February 18, 2016

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), updated February 19, 2016

Legislative Options for Financing Water Infrastructure, updated February 18, 2016

Recovery Act Funding for DOE Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) Projects, February 18, 2016

The Role of Local and Regional Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy, February 18, 2016

The Health Coverage Tax Credit (HCTC): In Brief, February 18, 2016

Temporary Protected Status: Current Immigration Policy and Issues, updated February 18, 2016

Kuwait: Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy, updated February 19, 2016

Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV): Background and Issues for Congress, updated February 18, 2016

FY2017 State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Budget Request: In Brief, February 19, 2016

In response to calls for increased deployment of ground forces against the Islamic State, the Congressional Research Service stated this week that “There are no clear-cut answers to determining the suitability, size, and mission profile of the ground elements of any military campaign; determining the disposition of military forces is in many ways as much an art as it is a science.”

“As it evaluates proposals to introduce more ground forces [to combat the Islamic State], Congress may therefore ponder five questions.” See Additional U.S. Ground Troops to Counter the Islamic State? Five Questions, CRS Insight, February 17, 2016.

Other new and updated reports from the Congressional Research Service issued this week include the following.

IAEA Budget and U.S. Contributions: In Brief, February 17, 2016

U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy, updated February 17, 2016

Border Security Metrics Between Ports of Entry, February 16, 2016

Deficits and Debt: Economic Effects and Other Issues, February 17, 2016

Domestic Food Assistance: Summary of Programs, updated February 17, 2016

U.S. Farm Income Outlook for 2016, February 16, 2016

The Federal Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program: Background, Funding, and Activities, February 16, 2016

Afghanistan: Post-Taliban Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy, updated February 17, 2016

Under a requirement recently enacted by Congress, intelligence agency employees who hold clearances for Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) must report any employment with a foreign government entity for up to two years after leaving their US government job.

An internal US Air Force memorandum implementing the new requirement for Air Force intelligence personnel was released under the Freedom of Information Act yesterday.

See Reporting Certain Post-Government Employment by Holders of Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) Accesses, Air Force Guidance Memorandum 2015-14-04-O, 5 November 2015.

SCI is classified information that is derived from intelligence sources or methods.

The reporting requirement concerning foreign government employment was adopted by Congress in the FY 2015 intelligence authorization act (section 305) and was enacted into law as 50 U.S.C. 3073a.

It is unclear from the public record whether any specific incident or circumstance prompted the new reporting requirement.

A new summary of U.S. intelligence expenditures over time has been prepared by the Congressional Research Service. See Intelligence Spending: In Brief, February 16, 2016.

Other new and updated reports from the Congressional Research Service that Congress has withheld from public distribution include the following.

What Does Justice Scalia’s Death Mean for Congress and the Nation?, CRS Legal Sidebar, February 16, 2016

Appointment of African American U.S. Circuit and District Court Judges: Historical Overview and Current Data, CRS Insight, February 12, 2016

FY2017 Defense Budget Request: In Brief, February 12, 2016

FY2016 Changes to DOD’s 1033 Program, CRS Insight, February 16, 2016 (The 1033 Program governs the transfer of surplus military equipment to local law enforcement agencies)

National Commission on the Future of the Army (NCFA): Background and Issues for Congress, February 5, 2016

Navy Virginia (SSN-774) Class Attack Submarine Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress, updated February 12, 2016

Lead in Flint, Michigan’s Drinking Water: Federal Regulatory Role, CRS Insight, February 16, 2016

U.S.-EU Data Privacy: From Safe Harbor to Privacy Shield, updated February 12, 2016

Disposal of Unneeded Federal Buildings: Legislative Proposals in the 114th Congress, February 12, 2016

Federal Support for Graduate Medical Education: An Overview, February 12, 2016

Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2016, updated February 11, 2016

Federal Grant Financial Reporting Requirements and Databases: Frequently Asked Questions, February 11, 2016

Brazil: Background and U.S. Relations, updated February 11, 2016

The European Union: Current Challenges and Future Prospects, updated February 15, 2016

The Congressional Research Service has prepared reports on various aspects of the U.S. Supreme Court nominations process, including these:

Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2010, August 6, 2010

Supreme Court Appointment Process: Roles of the President, Judiciary Committee, and Senate, February 19, 2010

Supreme Court Nominations Not Confirmed, 1789-August 2010, August 20, 2010

Supreme Court Nominations: Senate Floor Procedure and Practice, 1789-2011, March 11, 2011

Supreme Court Appointment Process: President’s Selection of a Nominee, October 19, 2015

Supreme Court Appointment Process: Consideration by the Senate Judiciary Committee, October 19, 2015

Supreme Court Appointment Process: Senate Debate and Confirmation Vote, October 19, 2015

Questioning Supreme Court Nominees About Their Views on Legal or Constitutional Issues: A Recurring Issue, June 23, 2010

Supreme Court Justices: Demographic Characteristics, Professional Experience, and Legal Education, 1789-2010, April 9, 2010

A 2014 memorandum from Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper, released this week under the Freedom of Information Act, drew a new distinction between intelligence satellite images and the intelligence products that are derived from those images.

The subtle new distinction affects the classification and declassification of the two categories of information, and may help to facilitate the release of a growing volume of imagery-related material by US intelligence agencies.

The new policy affirms that original satellite images retain their privileged status as a subset of protected intelligence sources and methods that can only be declassified by the Director of National Intelligence (pursuant to executive order 12951). However, the declassification of intelligence products based on those images is now delegated to the Director of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.

Adopting this distinction will mean “streamlining our procedures,” the DNI memo said, and “enabling the overall process to be more responsive to future Freedom of Information Act requests.”

See “Classification and Marking of Imagery Derived from Space-based National Intelligence Reconnaissance Systems,” memorandum from DNI James R. Clapper to NGA Director Robert Cardillo, November 12, 2014.

Whether the policy shift has already enabled more disclosure of intelligence imagery through the Freedom of Information Act is doubtful. We haven’t seen evidence of it.

But what is true is that the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency has undertaken to provide an increasing amount of unclassified imagery and mapping products to the public, including online resources concerning the Arctic, the Nepal earthquake, and the Ebola outbreak, as well as various disaster relief packages. Though it is easy to take the availability of this material for granted, it shouldn’t be; an affirmative decision and something of a cultural shift by the intelligence community (or at least by NGA) was required in order to accomplish it.

The indiscriminate use of the term “intelligence sources and methods” to justify withholding of intelligence-related information from the public has long been a source of frustration and a cause for criticism.

The 1997 Moynihan Commission on secrecy said that “this very general language has come to serve as a broad rationale for declining to declassify a vast range of information about the activities of intelligence agencies” and that it “appears at times to have been applied not in a thoughtful way but almost by rote.”

The Commission recommended that the scope of the term be clarified so as to limit its application.

DNI Clapper’s 2014 memorandum on intelligence image products may be understood as a step in that direction.

The phrase “notwithstanding any other provision of law” has already appeared in bills introduced in the current Congress more than 600 times, according to a new analysis from the Congressional Research Service.

“Does the presence of this phrase in an enactment really mean that no other statutes apply, as is sometimes suggested? The short answer is: not necessarily.”

See “Notwithstanding Any Other Provision of Law”: Does It Really Mean That No Other Provisions of Law Apply?, CRS Legal Sidebar, February 10, 2016.

Other new and updated Congressional Research Service reports that Congress has withheld from public release include the following.

The Shutdown of the Joint North/South Korean Kaesong Industrial Complex, CRS Insight, February 11, 2016

Volkswagen, Defeat Devices, and the Clean Air Act: Frequently Asked Questions, February 10, 2016

The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS): Waiver Authority and Modification of Volumes, February 10, 2016

An Overview of USDA Rural Development Programs, updated February 10, 2016

Private Health Insurance Market Reforms in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), updated February 10, 2016

Renewed Crypto Wars?, CRS Insight, February 9, 2016

Water Infrastructure Financing: The Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) Program, February 9, 2016

Social Security Primer, updated February 9, 2016

DOE’s Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE): A Primer, with Appropriations for FY2016, February 9, 2016

The Peace Corps: Current Issues, updated February 9, 2016

EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?, updated February 9, 2016

Aung San Suu Kyi’s Party Takes Control of Parliament in Burma, CRS Insight, February 9, 2016

China’s Recent Stock Market Volatility: What Are the Implications?, CRS Insight, updated February 11, 2016

The U.S.-Japan Alliance, updated February 9, 2016

The Islamic State and U.S. Policy, updated February 9, 2016

Intelligence community budgets appear set to continue on the modest downward slope of the last several years.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence said yesterday that it was requesting $53.5 billion for the National Intelligence Program (NIP) in FY 2017, a slight reduction from the $53.9 billion that was requested for the NIP in FY 2016. (The amount actually appropriated has not yet been disclosed.)

“Recognizing the challenges of this fiscal environment, the IC continues to review its operational, investment, and infrastructure programs to identify areas for savings. The Budget reflects the results of a deliberative process to ensure that the IC focuses on those programs that have the most impact and highest priority,” ODNI said in a fact sheet on the FY 2017 request.

Meanwhile, the Department of Defense said that it was requesting $16.8 billion for the Military Intelligence Program (MIP) in FY 2017, down from the $17.9 billion requested for the current fiscal year.

Public disclosure of the NIP budget request was required by Congress in the FY 2010 intelligence authorization act. But there is no corresponding requirement for DoD to publicly report the amount of its annual budget request for the MIP.

The practice of voluntarily declassifying and disclosing the MIP budget request was started by James R. Clapper when he was Under Secretary of Defense (Intelligence). Doing so “made sense,” he said recently, particularly since the NIP budget figure had to be released anyway.

Some Members of Congress expressed disappointment that the Obama Administration did not also voluntarily disclose the budget requests of individual intelligence agencies.

“There is no transparency there — they’re complying with the thinnest of laws about the [aggregate] number,” said Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT). “Members of Congress and the American public really are learning nothing.” See “Obama Keeps Public in Dark About ‘Black Budget’ Requests” by Steven Nelson, U.S. News, February 9.

*    *    *

The U.S. Constitution in Article I (Section 9) requires a public “Statement and Account” of the government’s receipt and expenditure of all money.

Past attempts to invoke this requirement to challenge intelligence budget secrecy have foundered on a 1974 US Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Richardson which said that a taxpayer lacked “standing” to make the argument in court.

But in a recent law review article, Chapman University professor Lawrence Rosenthal argued that this is not, or should not be, the end of the story, and that the Statement and Account clause may still have potency against secret intelligence expenditures.

“In terms of its text, original meaning, and its place in constitutional ethos and structure, the [Statement and Account] clause is comprehensible only if it is understood as a mechanism that enables the people to effectively hold the government accountable for its use of public funds. Disclosing an aggregate figure without more makes the clause a bit of foolscap…. If the clause requires only a meaningless and ineffectual disclosure, however, it becomes impossible to explain what it is doing in the Constitution.”

“Perhaps the level of disclosure required if we take the clause seriously would put the United States at a disadvantage when compared to other nations that fund their intelligence communities in secret. Or perhaps the resulting accountability would make our intelligence community stronger; we will never know unless we adopt a more transparent regime. Ultimately, however, the constitutional question about disclosure of intelligence spending does not turn on considerations of policy but on the Statement and Account Clause itself. If we take the clause seriously, the current regime cannot stand.”

See “The Statement and Account Clause as a National Security Freedom of Information Act” by Lawrence Rosenthal, Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, Volume 47, No. 1, Fall 2015.

New and updated reports from the Congressional Research Service that Congress has withheld from online public disclosure include the following.

Oman: Reform, Security, and U.S. Policy, updated February 5, 2016

Saudi Arabia: Background and U.S. Relations, updated February 5, 2016

Senate Committee Rules in the 114th Congress: Key Provisions, February 8, 2016

Medicare Trigger, updated February 8, 2016

Federal Freight Policy: In Brief, February 5, 2016

Local Food Systems: Selected Farm Bill and Other Federal Programs, February 5, 2016

Commemorative Commissions: Overview, Structure, and Funding, February 5, 2016

Ocean Energy Agency Appropriations, FY2016, February 5, 2016

Allocation of Wastewater Treatment Assistance: Formula and Other Changes, updated February 5, 2016

The New START Treaty: Central Limits and Key Provisions, updated February 5, 2016

Iran’s Nuclear Program: Tehran’s Compliance with International Obligations, updated February 8, 2016