Some recent reports from the Congressional Research Service that have not been made readily available in the public domain include the following (all pdf).

“Long-Range Ballistic Missile Defense in Europe,” June 22, 2007.

“Foreign Science and Engineering Presence in U.S. Institutions and the Labor Force,” updated June 21, 2007.

“Russian Political, Economic, and Security Issues and U.S. Interests,” updated May 31, 2007.

“The Use of Federal Troops for Disaster Assistance: Legal Issues,” updated April 24, 2007.

“The Department of Defense Rules for Military Commissions: Analysis of Procedural Rules and Comparison with Proposed Legislation and the Uniform Code of Military Justice,” updated September 25, 2006.

The Office of Vice President Dick Cheney proposed to abolish the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO), the executive branch organization that oversees the national security classification system, after its Director insisted that the Vice President comply with reporting requirements that apply to all executive branch entities.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), the chairman of the House Oversight Committee who revealed the move today, said in a letter to the Vice President (pdf) that it “could be construed as retaliation” against ISOO.

The proposed change in ISOO’s status was ultimately rejected by an interagency review group which is considering revisions to the executive order on classification policy.

The dispute between ISOO and the Office of the Vice President was prompted by a complaint filed with ISOO by the Federation of American Scientists in May 2006 (Secrecy News, 05/31/06). The FAS complaint (pdf) noted that the OVP had ceased to comply with its obligation to submit an annual report on classification and declassification activity, and asked the ISOO Director to enforce the requirement.

When the OVP continued to resist compliance, ISOO Director J. William Leonard formally asked the Attorney General in January 2007 (pdf) to intervene and to render an interpretation of the executive that would resolve the dispute in one direction or another.

A truncated copy of the ISOO letter to the Attorney General, with two attachments missing, was released by Rep. Waxman today. A complete copy of the January 9, 2007 letter is available here.

The Attorney General has not responded to the ISOO letter.

The recent inadvertent disclosure of intelligence spending figures concealed in an official PowerPoint briefing does not reveal the size of the intelligence budget, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) said this week (pdf).

Close scrutiny of a PowerPoint slide presented by ODNI official Terri Everett (.ppt) at a conference last month turned up budget numbers that were used to create a bar graph showing relative annual spending on intelligence contractors, and suggested that overall annual intelligence spending could be $60 billion or more.

But “the specific bar graphs on the slides and their underlying data were based on a small, anecdotal sample of a portion of Intelligence Community contracting activities. As a result, this data cannot be used to derive either the overall Intelligence Community budget, or a breakdown of any portion of the budget,” the ODNI said in a June 19 statement.

“The overall Intelligence Community budget and its components are classified to protect the national security interests of the United States,” the ODNI added, a claim that is widely disputed. Legislation (pdf) pending in the Senate would require annual disclosure of the national intelligence program budget.

The House Foreign Affairs Committee held a hearing last April on the policy of “extraordinary rendition,” referring to the seizure of suspected terrorists and their transfer to a foreign country for detention and interrogation.

The record of the hearing, which has just been published (pdf), features the volatile Michael Scheuer, a former CIA official involved in the rendition program. It is exceptionally nasty and occasionally funny.

Mr. Scheuer, veering from outrageous to absurd and back again, attacked John McCain, the Washington Post’s Dana Priest and quite a few others in remarkably offensive terms.

See “Extraordinary Rendition in U.S. Counterterrorism Policy: The Impact on Transatlantic Relations,” House Foreign Affairs Committee, April 17, 2007.

“Oftentimes,” Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) delicately observed, “people aspire to a higher percentage of their thoughts going unspoken than this hearing has demonstrated.”

Each U.S. military service now has “combat camera” (COMCAM) units that provide a unique visual record of military operations, according to a new manual on COMCAM tactics and procedures (pdf).

The photographic and motion imagery produced by military photographers “enhances the commander’s situational awareness and establishes a historical operations record.”

If and when such imagery is eventually released, it has the potential to add a new dimension to public understanding of military operations and to supplement external oversight.

“COMCAM forces perform unique and highly specialized missions … supporting the full range of military operations in all operational environments. COMCAM personnel maintain qualifications enabling them to operate with airborne forces, special operations forces, and military divers.”

“In an increasingly media-driven world and global information environment, the ability to exploit VIDOC [visual information documentation] has enabled the warfighter to gain a battlespace advantage.”

“COMCAM forces provide commanders with visual information (VI) that directly supports their decision making and operational assessment. During recent operations, daily imagery usage included: battle briefings, targeting, operational assessment, force protection, battlespace orientation, airfield qualification, public affairs, operational awareness, information operations, psychological operations, and battle damage assessment.”

Much or most of the COMCAM imagery product is classified. Even the unclassified imagery cannot be publicly disclosed without prior review and approval.

But over the long term, “Comprehensive visual information documentation ensures an accurate historical record of military operations,” according to the new manual, which was issued jointly by the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force.

See “COMCAM – Multi-Service Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures for Combat Camera Operations,” U.S. Army Field Manual 3-55.12, May 2007.

Military doctrine for the planning and execution of U.S. counterdrug operations, including detection, monitoring, disruption and interdiction of illegal drug trafficking, is presented in a new publication from the Joint Chiefs of Staff. See “Joint Counterdrug Operations” (pdf), Joint Publication JP 3-07.4, 13 June 2007.

The “capstone” publication for all joint military doctrine was also recently updated and reissued. See Joint Publication JP 1, “Doctrine for the Armed Forces of the United States” (pdf), 14 May 2007.

Noteworthy new reports of the Congressional Research Service on national security, foreign policy and other topics include the following (all pdf).

“Venezuela: Political Conditions and U.S. Policy,” updated June 8, 2007.

“Navy Role in Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) — Background and Issues for Congress,” updated April 16, 2007.

“Turkey’s 2007 Elections: Crisis of Identity and Power,” June 12, 2007.

“The Quasi Government: Hybrid Organizations with Both Government and Private Sector Legal Characteristics,” updated February 13, 2007.

The structure of Army special operations forces, their capabilities and characteristic mission profiles, and the role of intelligence in supporting them are described in a newly disclosed U.S. Army field manual (pdf).

There are nine distinct missions for Army special forces, including: unconventional warfare, direct action, counterproliferation, foreign internal defense, psychological operations, and “special activities,” which is the DoD euphemism for covert action.

“Special activities fall under Executive Order 12333, United States Intelligence Activities,” according to the Army field manual. “They require a presidential finding and congressional oversight. ARSOF [Army Special Operations Forces] conduct them abroad in support of national foreign policy objectives, but in a manner that USG [US Government] participation is neither apparent nor publicly acknowledged.”

The 200-page Army field manual, which remains in effect, was issued in 2001. A copy of the unclassified document was obtained by Secrecy News. See “Army Special Operations Forces Intelligence,” Field Manual FM 3-05.102, July 2001.

The secrecy of DoD special operations has significantly impeded oversight and accountability, reported Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker this week. The Hersh article also said that the Bush Administration had “unilaterally determined after 9/11” that military intelligence operations could be conducted on presidential authority without congressional notification — notwithstanding the contrary language of the Army field manual.

The “can do” attitude that characterizes Army and other special operations forces makes them attractive to policy makers, but it can also be a cause for concern, according to a congressional review (pdf) of the failed Army Ranger mission in Somalia in 1993 (cited in a 2006 paper [pdf] by David Tucker and Christopher J. Lamb of National Defense University).

“One of the weaknesses of a unit like Task Force Ranger, whose combat capabilities are unparalleled, is the belief by the unit members and its commanders that they can accomplish any mission.”

“Because of the supreme confidence of special operations forces, the chain of command must provide more oversight to this type of unit than to conventional forces.”

See “Review of the Circumstances Surrounding the Ranger Raid on October 3-4, 1993 in Mogadishu, Somalia,” Senate Armed Services Committee, September 29, 1995.

A bipartisan bill introduced in the Senate would require the Director of National Intelligence to prepare an unclassified report on energy security.

“American dependence on foreign oil has made our Nation less safe,” said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) in an introductory statement. “Oil revenues have provided income for dangerous rogue states, they have sparked bloody civil wars, and they have even provided funding for terrorism.”

“In a sickening phenomenon that I call the terror tax, every time that Americans drive their cars down to the gas station and fill up at the pump, the reality is that a portion of that money is then turned over to foreign governments that ‘backdoor’ it over to Islamist extremists, who use that money to perpetuate terrorism and hate.”

* * *The next administration would be required to conduct a comprehensive review of U.S. nuclear weapons policy and to prepare an unclassified report of its nuclear posture review, according to the 2008 defense authorization act, as marked up by the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The report, which is intended to update the 2001 nuclear posture review (NPR), would have to be submitted in unclassified form in December 2009.

“Although the Secretary of Defense was directed to submit the December 2001 NPR in an unclassified form, unfortunately this never happened,” the Senate Committee said.

See, relatedly, “Congress Seeks New Direction for Nuclear Strategy” by Walter Pincus, Washington Post, June 18.

To qualify for conscientious objector status and to be granted military discharge on that basis, an individual must oppose all wars, not just a particular war. However, a conscientious objector may still embrace “spiritual warfare” between good and evil, the Department of Defense explained in a new policy instruction (pdf).

“An individual who desires to choose the war in which he or she will participate is not a Conscientious Objector under the law. The individual’s objection must be to all wars rather than a specific war.”

But “a belief in a theocratic or spiritual war between the powers of good and evil does not constitute a willingness to participate in ‘war’ within the meaning of this Instruction.” In other words, it is possible both to be a “spiritual warrior” and a conscientious objector. It is uncertain whether enlisting in spiritual warfare on the side of evil would void this distinction.

See “Conscientious Objectors,” Department of Defense Instruction 1300.06, May 5, 2007.

The U.S. intelligence community may acknowledge professional excellence by presenting employees or others with one of several monetary or honorary awards specified in a new Intelligence Community Directive (pdf).

“It is the policy of the DNI to recognize and honor all individuals and groups for distinguished service and/or exceptional contributions to the security of the U.S.; the development and execution of the U.S. National Intelligence Strategy and its various implementation plans; the integration and transformation of the IC, and/or the accomplishment of its mission;” and so forth.

Awards may range from certificates and “keepsakes” of no monetary value to large financial gifts. Amounts in excess of $25,000 must be approved by the President.

Covert personnel are not permitted to take possession of their awards.

Instead, “the IC element and/or the ODNI retain(s) the award when the individual is covert or a future covert assignment or affiliation is likely.”

Intelligence Community Directive 655, entitled “National Intelligence Awards Program,” was issued by Directive of National Intelligence Mike McConnell on May 23, 2007.

A defense attorney in the prosecution of former CIA executive director Kyle “Dusty” Foggo and contractor Brent Wilkes on bribery charges has refused to undergo a background investigation or submit to other procedures required in order to obtain a security clearance for access to classified information.

Defense counsel should not be required “to undergo any kind of a process by which my adversary in an adversarial system is going to determine whether or not I can represent my client,” argued celebrity attorney Mark Geragos, who represents Brent Wilkes.

Instead, he indicated, the government should simply provide the defense with all exculpatory material.

But it doesn’t work that way, government attorneys said. In a June 8 pleading (pdf), they asked the court to require imposition of a security clearance, administered by a judicial branch official if necessary, or to take other steps to safeguard up to 15,000 pages of classified discovery materials.

The unusual dispute was first reported by Justin Rood in “Attorney Geragos Accused of Subtle Extortion,” ABC News’ The Blotter, June 11.