On August 1, the Pacific island nation of Palau became the 139th country to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty that would ban all nuclear explosions.

Among states that possess nuclear weapons, only France, Russia and the United Kingdom have ratified the Treaty. To enter into force, the CTBT Organization explained in an August 7 news release, the Treaty must be ratified by ten other countries including the United States, China, Iran, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea, none of which has shown any eagerness to proceed.

The John F. Kennedy Presidential Library last week released declassified recordings of President Kennedy discussing the debate over a nuclear test ban in 1963.

Detailed background on the history and status of the nuclear test ban debate is available from the Congressional Research Service in “Nuclear Weapons: Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty” (pdf), updated July 12, 2007.

A newly updated U.S. Army regulation on information assurance defines standards and procedures for protecting classified and unclassified information in automated information systems. See “Information Assurance” (pdf), AR 25-2, August 3, 2007.

Meanwhile, a new U.S. Navy Instruction establishes policy on monitoring of Navy communications for internal security purposes. See “Communications Security (COMSEC) Monitoring of Navy Telecommunications and Automated Information Systems (AIS)” (pdf), OPNAV Instruction 2201.3A, August 2, 2007.

Updated below

One day after President Bush signed into law a bill that requires public disclosure of the national intelligence budget, the House of Representatives adopted an amendment to prevent that requirement from taking effect.

The budget disclosure provision appeared in legislation enacting the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, which was passed by Congress last month and signed by President Bush on August 3.

If implemented, it would mark the first time that Congress successfully asserted its authority to compel disclosure of currently classified information over the objections of the executive branch. Since 1998, the intelligence bureaucracy has consistently refused to divulge the intelligence budget total. The White House stated on February 28 that budget disclosure “could cause damage to the national security interests of the United States.”

The opposing view, adopted by the 9/11 Commission and endorsed by Congress last month, is that budget disclosure is an indispensable precondition to broader accountability and that it is essential to restoring the credibility of a defective classification system.

But despite the fact that the requirement to disclose the intelligence budget has finally passed into law, it may not happen after all.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) offered an amendment to the Defense Appropriations Act on August 4 that would prohibit budget disclosure. Without any debate, Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) announced that the amendment was accepted.

The Issa amendment will have to be addressed in a House-Senate conference before it effectively repeals the new disclosure requirement.

Update: See further coverage of this story in “Powerful Democrat agrees to block disclosure of intelligence budget” by John Byrne, Raw Story, August 7; and “Congress Rethinks New Intel Budget Law” by Jim Abrams, Associated Press, August 7.

A federal court last week accepted a Central Intelligence Agency argument that the date on which former covert officer Valerie Plame Wilson’s employment at the CIA began should remain classified even though it is irrevocably in the public domain.

The date in question appeared in a seemingly unclassified letter sent by CIA to Ms. Wilson and published in the Congressional Record. But when she sought to include the information in the manuscript of her forthcoming memoir, the CIA objected that it is still classified. Now the Court has agreed.

“To be sure, the public may draw whatever conclusions it might from the fact that the information at issue was sent on CIA letterhead by the Chief of Retirement and Insurance Services,” wrote Judge Barbara S. Jones in an August 1 ruling (pdf). “However, nothing in the law or its policy requires the CIA to officially acknowledge what those in the public may think they know.”

The text of the CIA letter containing the classified information citing the start of Ms. Wilson’s employment on November 9, 1985 was published in the Congressional Record (pdf) on January 16, 2007.

In their June 28 motion (pdf) to overturn CIA censorship, Ms. Wilson’s attorneys cited a lawsuit of mine in which the CIA was compelled to disclose its 1963 budget after I showed that the figure had previously been declassified. “As in ‘Aftergood’,” they argued by analogy, “the Court should reject the CIA’s belated and unsupported effort” to deny access to information in the public domain.

But that case was different, the government replied on July 13 (pdf). The 1963 budget figure was declassified, albeit inadvertently. The information on Ms. Wilson’s employment was never formally declassified, inadvertently or otherwise, but was merely disclosed by accident.

An unclassified declaration by Stephen R. Kappes (pdf), deputy director of CIA, provided a lucid explanation of CIA’s perspective on classification of information about covert employees, intelligence liaison relationships, and related topics.

Other selected case files may be found here.

The Open Government Act, a bipartisan bill to strengthen the Freedom of Information Act, passed the Senate on August 3 after objections from a lone Senator were finally overcome.

Senators Pat Leahy (D-VT) and John Cornyn (R-TX) successfully shepherded the legislation, which is intended to expedite agency responsiveness to FOIA requests and improve the freedom of information regime in various other ways.

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), who had earlier placed a hold on the bill blocking its advance, explained his concerns in an August 3 floor statement and how they had been resolved. The measure passed on a voice vote.

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.