A new pamphlet (pdf) from the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM) History Office describes locations in and around Washington, D.C. that have significant associations with the history of U.S. military intelligence.

“The sites selected span two centuries of military intelligence in support of the Nation and its Army, starting with George Washington in the Revolutionary War and ending with William F. Friedman in World War II,” according to the introduction.

A dozen or so sites are described, and directions for finding them are provided.

The locations of grave sites of notable figures in military intelligence at Arlington National Cemetery, including cryptologists William Friedman and his wife Elizebeth (misspelled here as “Elizabeth”), are provided.

The new INSCOM pamphlet was published this year in hardcopy only, but a scanned version is now available online.

See “On the Trail of Military Intelligence History: A Guide to the Washington, DC, Area,” U.S. Army INSCOM History Office, 2007 (36 pages, 2.6 MB PDF).

The White House press office and some Bush Administration critics are insisting that the 2003 executive order on classification policy endowed the Vice President with a unique status and classification powers identical to those of the President himself.

But that’s not what the executive order says.

“In this executive order the President is saying that the Vice President is not different than him,” said White House press secretary Dana Perino on June 25.

“The executive order on classified national security information — Executive Order 12958 as amended in 2003 — makes it clear that the Vice President is treated like the President and distinguishes the two of them from ‘agencies’,” wrote David Addington, the Vice President’s chief of staff in a June 26 letter (pdf) to Senator Kerry.

Similarly, New York Times columnist and Bush critic Frank Rich wrote yesterday that in 2003 “every provision [in the executive order] that gave powers to the president over classified documents was amended to give the identical powers to the vice president.”

Mr. Rich claimed that “this unprecedented increase in vice-presidential clout” has “special importance” for understanding the Iraq war, the Valerie Plame case and more.

“By giving Mr. Cheney the same classification powers he had, Mr. Bush gave his vice president a free hand to wield a clandestine weapon: he could use leaks to punish administration critics,” wrote Mr. Rich.

From an opposing political perspective, Byron York of the National Review wrote last year that the revised executive order constituted an “enormously consequential expansion of vice-presidential power.”

More soberly, the Congressional Research Service reported in a memo to Rep. Henry Waxman (pdf) that “Among the modifications made by the new [executive] order were the vesting of the vice president with authority coequal to that of the President to security classify information originally.”

And I myself wrote in Secrecy News last year that the language of the 2003 executive order “dramatically elevates the Vice President’s classification authority to that of the President.”

On closer examination, none of this appears to be correct.

The text of the 2003 executive order does not grant any new classification authority to the Vice President beyond that which he already possessed as one of some two dozen officials authorized by the President to classify information originally at the Top Secret level. Like those other officials, the Vice President was already authorized to classify information within the scope of the executive order, and to delegate his authority to others. No additional classification powers were provided in the new order.

A line by line comparison of the Bush executive order with the prior order, indicating what was added and what was deleted in 2003, shows that every classification authority granted to the Vice President was also granted to other agency heads, such as the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of State, and was also possessed by the Vice President himself in the past.

Mr. Addington and the White House press office argue that the mere juxtaposition of references to the President and the Vice President in the text of the 2003 Bush order — such as in section 1.3(a)(1) — somehow translates into new status for the Vice President. But again, no such status or new authority is articulated in the order.

To the contrary, the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office, who is charged by the President with implementing and overseeing the executive order, concluded that an interpretation of the order which treats the Office of the Vice President as entirely distinct from other executive branch entities is not consistent with a “plain text reading,” as he wrote to the Attorney General (pdf).

Fundamentally, the Vice President’s classification authority is not and cannot be identical to that of the President. The President’s authority is inherent, stemming from his status as commander in chief of the armed forces; the Vice President’s authority is derivative. Likewise, and for the same reason, the President can alter the provisions of the executive order at a moment’s notice; the Vice President cannot.

The Department of Defense TALON database of threat information that compiled information on U.S. persons involved in domestic protests was implemented in compliance with U.S. law, a review by the DoD Inspector General (pdf) concluded. However, some of the raw information was improperly retained in violation of a DoD directive, the IG said in an extensive new report.

See “The Threat and Local Observation Notice (TALON) Report Program,” DoD Inspector General, June 27, 2007 (flagged by Sabrina Pacifici at BeSpacific.com).

The Senate Judiciary Committee last week issued a report on the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act, a bill to repeal provisions adopted in the last Congress that eliminated access to U.S. courts for suspected alien enemy combatants.

“The legislation would permit detainees held by the United States Government as enemy combatants, or as potential enemy combatants, to file writs of habeas corpus and other related actions in the United States District Courts.”

The June 26 Committee report includes a detailed justification of the legislation, as well as a lengthy dissent by several Republican Senators.

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

“Trafficking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for Congress,” updated June 20, 2007.

“Intelligence and Information-Sharing Elements of S. 4 and H.R. 1,” June 26, 2007.

“Potential F-22 Raptor Export to Japan,” June 28, 2007.

“The Department of Defense: Reducing Its Reliance on Fossil-Based Aviation Fuel — Issues for Congress,” June 15, 2007.

“India-U.S. Relations,” updated June 26, 2007.

“Pakistan-U.S. Relations,” updated June 6, 2007.

“Mongolia and U.S. Policy: Political and Economic Relations,” June 22, 2007.

A new U.S. Army Field Manual (large pdf) introduces the science and technology of aeronautics to non-specialist readers in a rigorous but readable format.

From Bernoulli’s principle to the challenges of night flight, the 392 page manual starts with the rudiments and builds from there.

“Because the U.S. Army prepares its Soldiers to operate anywhere in the world, this publication describes the unique requirements and flying techniques crewmembers will use to successfully operate in extreme environments, not always encountered in home station training.”

See “Fundamentals of Flight,” Field Manual FM 3-04.203, May 2007 (18 MB PDF file).

Congressional leaders who are investigating the refusal of Vice President Cheney to comply with executive branch procedures for oversight of classification and declassification activity yesterday asked Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (pdf) to account for his sluggish handling of the issue.

Last January, J. William Leonard, the director of the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO), asked the Attorney General to determine whether the Office of the Vice President is subject to reporting requirements like other executive branch agencies, or not.

A reply is not optional. The executive order states clearly that “The Attorney General, upon request…, shall render an interpretation of this order with respect to any question arising in the course of its administration” (sec. 6.2b).

Yet no such reply has been forthcoming.

“Due to conflicting statements from your department, the status of your review of this matter is unclear,” wrote Reps. Henry Waxman, John Conyers Jr., and William Lacy Clay in their letter to the Attorney General. “More than six months (sic) have passed since Mr. Leonard’s letter to you, and the Information Security Oversight Office has received no response to its inquiry.”

The House letter asked Attorney General Gonzales to reply to a series of questions regarding his review of the Vice President’s status as a classifier.

The Congressmen cited a Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel reply (pdf) to a Freedom of Information Act request from the Federation of American Scientists (first reported by Michael Isikoff in Newsweek this week) indicating that “no documents” had been generated in response to the ISOO inquiry.

On the Senate floor yesterday, Sen. Patrick Leahy extolled the FAS request as a example of the utility of the Freedom of Information Act.

“Just this week, we witnessed the great value of FOIA in shedding light on a controversial policy within the Office of the Vice President regarding the handling of classified information, with news reports that a FOIA request to the Justice Department first revealed that the Attorney General may have delayed a review into the legality of this troubling policy,” Sen. Leahy said in a June 27 statement on the status of the Open Government Act, which has been held up by opposition from a Republican Senator.

In a June 25 letter (pdf), Sen. Dick Durbin asked the Vice President to comply with the requirements of the Executive Order “so that we will not be compelled to take corrective action in our appropriations bill.”

Vice Presidential Chief of Staff David Addington defended Dick Cheney’s refusal to submit to oversight by the Information Security Oversight Office in a June 26 letter (pdf) to Sen. John Kerry.

“The executive order on classified national security information — Executive Order 12958 as amended in 2003 — makes it clear that the Vice President is treated like the President and distinguishes the two of them from ‘agencies’,” he wrote.

Mr. Addington’s claim is demonstrably false.

By presidential order dated October 13, 1995, the President delegated original classification authority to the Vice President under Executive Order 12958, along with other officials in the executive office of the President and various agency heads.

When the executive order was amended in 2003, that delegation of classification authority to the Vice President was not rescinded or modified. It remains in effect. Consequently, the Vice President’s authority is comparable to that of the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of State.

Furthermore, as ISOO director J. William Leonard explained in his January 9, 2007 letter to the Attorney General (pdf), a “plain text reading” of the order indicates that the Office of the Vice President is subject to the order’s requirements. He noted that the OVP is granted one particular exemption, concerning the order’s mandatory declassification review provisions.

“This sole explicit reference for the purpose of exempting the OVP from a provision of the Order supports an interpretation that the rest of the Order does apply…. otherwise there would be no need for an exemption,” Mr. Leonard flawlessly argued.

By contrast, reported Michael Abramowitz in the Washington Post (June 27), “Addington did not cite specific language in the executive order supporting [his] view, and a Cheney spokeswoman could not point to such language last night. But spokeswoman Lee Anne McBride said the intent of the order, as expressed by White House officials in recent days, was ‘not for the VP to be separated from the president on this reporting requirement’.”

The President could amend the executive order at a moment’s notice to exempt the Vice President from oversight. Or the Attorney General could render an interpretation of the order that favors the Vice President’s position. But neither action has been taken.

Instead, the White House simply insists that the executive order does not mean what a “plain text reading” says that it means. By doing so, it degrades the machinery of government.

The Director of National Intelligence has issued policy guidance (pdf) that encourages and directs temporary assignments for intelligence officials in more than one element of the intelligence bureaucracy as a prerequisite for promotion to senior leadership positions.

The idea is that such rotations would increase cohesion within the intelligence community, improve cooperation, and enhance a sense of shared purpose.

“Joint Duty assignments further the interests of each IC element and the Community as a whole, promote the effectiveness of the U.S. Government, and provide future IC leaders with a broader perspective on the issues facing the Community,” according to the new Instructions.

See “Intelligence Community Civilian Joint Duty Program Implementing Instructions,” Intelligence Community Policy Guidance (ICPG) 601.01, June 25, 2007.

Skeptics question the feasibility of this approach.

“Contrary to the intention of such a program, there are really only three types of people who pursue rotations: those who are in a job they hate; those who work for a boss they hate, and those who are encouraged by their boss to find another job,” wrote former intelligence officer Michael Tanji.

“Those who might actually want to expand their knowledge of the community and prepare themselves for positions of greater responsibility are usually thwarted by their management: Anyone worth a darn is kept close to the vest.”

See “Old Wine in New Bottles,” The SPOT Report, Washington Examiner, June 27.

The Transportation Security Agency last week circulated a notice to Federal Air Marshals regarding protection of sensitive data (pdf). A copy was obtained by Secrecy News.

The notice focuses on Sensitive Security Information (SSI) and so-called Sensitive Personally Identifiable Information (PII).

SSI is transportation security-related information that is exempt from disclosure.

Sensitive PII includes social security numbers, drivers license numbers and similar data.

The proliferation of new categories and new acronyms for restricting disclosure of information is not helpful, said P. Jeffrey Black, who is himself a Federal Air Marshal and a whistleblower.

“Employee personal identification information is protected under the Privacy Act. There is no reason to come up with yet another acronymed classification for something that is already protected by Act of Congress,” Mr. Black said in response to an inquiry from Secrecy News.

A new publication (pdf) from the Joint Chiefs of Staff presents “fundamental principles and guidance for intelligence support to joint operations.”

The document provides an overview of the various intelligence-related disciplines, from imagery to interrogation, and their employment in support of military operations.

See “Joint Intelligence,” Joint Publication 2-0, 22 June 2007.

The arcane details of national security classification policy became the stuff of late night comedy as White House officials struggled to justify the peculiar refusal of Vice President Dick Cheney to comply with the oversight requirements established by President Bush’s executive order on classification.

For two successive days, the White House press briefing was dominated by incredulous reporters who wondered how the Vice President could claim that he both was and was not part of the executive branch; why he complied with oversight reporting requirements in 2001 and 2002, and why he then ceased to comply; and how the Vice President’s behavior can be consistent with the executive order when the Administration’s own Information Security Oversight Office says that it is not.

“I’m not a legal scholar,” said an exasperated Dana Perino, the White House spokeswoman. “I’m not opining on his argument that his office is making.”

The story became certifiably big news last night when it was the subject of a five minute satirical segment on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (where I had a microsecond cameo). See “Non-Executive Decision,” June 25, 2007, under “most recent videos.”

The Justice Department had said that the classification policy dispute was “under review” since Information Security Oversight Office director J. William Leonard asked the Attorney General in January 2007 to resolve the matter. But in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, the Justice Department revealed that no documents whatsoever had been generated by the purported review. See “A New Cheney-Gonzales Mystery” by Michael Isikoff, Newsweek, July 2.

Congressional leaders are stirring the pot, warning that the Office of Vice President could suffer budget penalties if it does not comply with routine oversight procedures. See “Secrecy May Cost Cheney, Dems Warn” by Elana Schor and Mike Soraghan, The Hill, June 26.

To recap: The internal executive branch conflict over the Vice President’s non-compliance with the executive order was triggered by a formal complaint filed with the Information Security Oversight Office in May 2006 by the Federation of American Scientists (following a report in the Chicago Tribune by Mark Silva).

The FAS complaint was accepted by ISOO Director William Leonard, and was forwarded to the Attorney General in January with his request (pdf) for an official interpretation of the executive order. There the matter lay for five months until Congressman Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, raised the issue to stratospheric heights last week with a letter to the Vice President (pdf) questioning his Office’s conduct.

The Diane Rehm Show on National Public Radio devoted an hour to the topic yesterday with Congressman Waxman, Peter Baker of the Washington Post, former Justice Department lawyer David Rivkin, and myself. See “The Executive Branch and Classified Information,” June 25.

The controversy is playing out against the backdrop of a massive four-part series in the Washington Post on Vice President Cheney’s role and conduct written by Barton Gellman and Jo Becker. The story had been under development for many months and Ms. Becker has since left the Post to go work for the New York Times. In a weird and probably unprecedented coincidence, she had a byline in front page stories in both the Washington Post and the New York Times on June 25.