Last October the Environmental Protection Agency closed five of its libraries, including the headquarters library in Washington DC, and limited public access at four others.

EPA said the closures were part of an ongoing restructuring and that public demand for EPA records would be increasingly satisfied online. Public interest groups and librarians warned that valuable documentary resources were in danger of being lost or destroyed.

A report (pdf) from the Congressional Research Service fleshes out some new details of the library closures and finds some cause for concern.

“EPA determined that the utility of some of its libraries had declined as the agency has made more information available through the Internet, and as heightened security at its facilities has led to fewer public visitors,” CRS observed.

But “Which materials will be retained, dispersed, or discarded, and the amount of time and funding needed to complete this [restructuring] process, are uncertain.”

See “Restructuring EPA’s Libraries: Background and Issues for Congress,” updated January 3, 2007.

Some other recent products of the Congressional Research Service that are not readily available in the public domain include the following (all pdf).

“U.S. Army and Marine Corps Equipment Requirements: Background and Issues for Congress,” December 20, 2006.

“U.S. Arms Sales: Agreements with and Deliveries to Major Clients, 1998-2005,” December 15, 2006.

“‘Terrorism’ and Related Terms in Statute and Regulation: Selected Language,” updated December 5, 2006.

“Incapacity of a Member of the Senate,” December 15, 2006.

National Security Agency director Lt. Gen. Keith B. Alexander answered dozens of questions for the record related to NSA surveillance activities following a September 6 July 26, 2006 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on “FISA for the 21st Century.” That hearing record has not yet been published, but General Alexander’s 35 page response to Senators’ questions is available here (pdf).

A new report from the Congressional Budget Office “examines the costs and potential performance of four possible designs for a Space Radar system.” See “Alternatives for Military Space Radar” (pdf), Congressional Budget Office, January 2007.

“Joint Operation Planning” (pdf) is a new publication from the Joint Chiefs of Staffs that “reflects the current doctrine for conducting joint, interagency, and multinational planning activities across the full range of military operations.” See Joint Publication 5-0, December 26, 2006.

A newly released opinion (pdf) from the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel advises that the open meeting requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act do not apply when government officials consult non-governmental individuals (as opposed to committees). Nor do they apply to government meetings with non-governmental groups, says OLC, as long as the members of the groups only provide their opinions as individuals, and not as a collective. See “Application of Federal Advisory Committee Act to Non-Governmental Consultations,” Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel, December 7, 2001 (released January 3, 2007).

A conference entitled “Covering the New Secrecy: The Press and Public Policy” (pdf) and sponsored by the Knight-Wallace Fellows will be held at the University of Michigan on January 8.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation advised Congress last month that it will no longer seek to recover classified information that may be contained in the collected papers of the late Jack Anderson.

The FBI “is not seeking to reclaim any documents,” the Bureau said in response to a question from Senator Arlen Specter.

The FBI statement (pdf) was contained in the answers to questions for the record from a May 2, 2006 hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee on FBI Oversight that were posted on the Federation of American Scientists web site by Secrecy News yesterday.

The Associated Press today noted the FBI’s renunciation of its pursuit of the Jack Anderson papers. Earlier in 2006, the Bureau had expressed concern that the Anderson archive may contain classified indication and approached the Anderson family to review the collection.

See “FBI Drops Its Quest for Papers of Reporter” by Laura Jakes Jordan, Associated Press, and Wendy Leonard, Deseret Morning News, January 4.

A new internet initiative called Wikileaks seeks to promote good government and democratization by enabling anonymous disclosure and publication of confidential government records.

“WikiLeaks is developing an uncensorable version of WikiPedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis,” according to the project web site.

“Our primary targets are highly oppressive regimes in China, Russia, central eurasia, the middle east and sub-saharan Africa, but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the west who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their own governments and corporations.”

“A system [that] enables everyone to leak safely to a ready audience is the most cost effective means of promoting good government — in health and medicine, in food supply, in human rights, in arms control and democratic institutions.”

Wikileaks says that it has already acquired over one million documents that it is now preparing for publication.

The project web site is not yet fully “live.” But an initial offering — a document purportedly authored by Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys of Somalia’s radical Islamic Courts Union — is posted in a zipped file here.

An analysis of the document’s authenticity and implications is posted here.

Wikileaks invited Secrecy News to serve on its advisory board. We explained that we do not favor automated or indiscriminate publication of confidential records.

In the absence of accountable editorial oversight, publication can more easily become an act of aggression or an incitement to violence, not to mention an invasion of privacy or an offense against good taste.

So we disagree on first principles? No problem, replied Wikileaks: “Advisory positions are just that — advisory! If you want to advise us to censor, then by all means do so.”

While Wikileaks seeks to make unauthorized disclosures technologically immune to government control, an opposing school of thought proposes to expand U.S. government authority to seize control of information that is already in the public domain when its continued availability is deemed unacceptably dangerous.

“Although existing authorities do not directly address the subject, it appears that reasonable restrictions upon the possession and dissemination of catastrophically dangerous information can be constitutionally implemented,” suggests Stewart Harris of the Appalachian School of Law. See “Restrictions are justifiable,” National Law Journal, December 11, 2006.

Foreign efforts to gather information on defense-related U.S. technologies are characterized in a 2006 report (pdf) by the Defense Security Service (DSS) Counterintelligence Office.

“In 2005, DSS identified 106 countries associated with suspicious activities based on U.S. cleared defense industry reporting, up from 90 countries in 2004.”

Information systems, lasers, sensors and aeronautics were among the technology areas most frequently targeted by foreign intelligence.

The unclassified DSS report is posted on the DSS web site, but is password-protected to block public access. A copy was obtained by Secrecy News.

See “Technology Collection Trends in the U.S. Defense Industry,” Defense Security Service, June 2006 (33 pages, 2.5 MB PDF).

The report was first reported by Bill Gertz in the Washington Times today. See his “Foreign spy activity surges to fill technology gap.”

The State Department today invited public comment on its proposed revision of regulations on the control of classified national security information. See this January 3 Federal Register notice.

The People’s Republic of China published a new edition of its annual White Paper on national defense on December 29. Boasting of increased transparency, the document features a new section on defense expenditures. See “China’s National Defense in 2006.”

A comprehensive overview of records management in the U.S. Army is presented in “Guide to Recordkeeping in the Army” (pdf), Pamphlet 25-403, December 20, 2006.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation recently provided over 100 pages of answers (large pdf) to Senate questions for the record from a May 2, 2006 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on FBI Oversight. The responses on diverse topics concerning FBI operations were completed in July, but were only cleared for release to Congress on November 30, and were recently published in a Committee hearing volume. See the FBI responses here (147 pages, 7 MB PDF).

The Department of Energy’s search for inadvertent disclosures of classified nuclear weapons information in declassified government files seems to have reached the point of diminishing returns. In its latest quarterly report to Congress (pdf), DOE noted that it had examined 719,040 pages of declassified public records at the National Archives and found 38 pages containing nuclear information that it said should not have been disclosed. See the Twenty-Third Report on Inadvertent Disclosures of Restricted Data and Formerly Restricted Data, November 2006.

An investigation by the Inspector General of the National Archives (large pdf) “substantiated that [former National Security Adviser Samuel R.] Berger unlawfully removed and retained classified documents” from the Archives in 2003. The 121 page report on the Berger investigation, redacted to remove classified and other exempt information, is now posted here.

Most government records are ineffably boring to anyone who doesn’t already have a vested interest in the topics they address. It is to the credit of the Congressional Research Service that it makes important policy issues slightly less boring and more digestible. Some previously unnoted CRS reports are these (all pdf):

“Veterans’ Health Care Issues in the 109th Congress,” updated October 26, 2006.

“Natural Gas Markets in 2006,” updated December 12, 2006.

“The WTO, Intellectual Property Rights, and the Access to Medicines Controversy,” updated December 12, 2006.

“The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW): Congressional Issues,” updated December 14, 2006.

Finally, an unusual aircraft exhaust contrail photographed in Ohio last month suggests that experimental research into “pulsed detonation engines” or other forms of exotic propulsion continues. The distinctive “donuts on a rope” contrail was photographed east of Dayton, Ohio on November 10, 2006 by William D. Telzerow.

Thanks to all of those who helped sustain and encourage Secrecy News this year by providing essential financial support, access to documents, useful criticism and kind words.

The State Department said today that it will modify the latest Nixon-era volume of the official Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) series to include the amount of the 1970 U.S. intelligence budget after Secrecy News pointed out that this number had previously been disclosed in an earlier volume of FRUS.

According to an editorial note in the latest FRUS volume published last week, “The President [Nixon] stated that the United States is spending a total of about [dollar amount not declassified] per year on intelligence and it deserves to receive a lot more for its money than it has been getting.” (Foreign Relations, 1969-1976, volume II, document 210).

But in another FRUS volume published last April, that ancient secret was already revealed:

“The President stated that the US is spending $6 billion per year on intelligence and deserves to receive a lot more for its money than it has been getting. (Foreign Relations, 1969-1976, volume VI, document 344).

“Thank you for pointing out the inconsistency between the editorial note in FRUS volume II and the document in volume VI,” wrote Edward C. Keefer, General Editor of the Foreign Relations of the United States series in an email message to Secrecy News today.

“We have brought it to the attention of the declassifying agency [i.e., CIA] and they have agreed to release the actual figure in the editorial note of volume II, making it consistent with the document in volume VI. We will make the change on the internet version of volume II and we should be able to make the change in printed volume II as well.”

“We are pleased that we have people like you who read our volumes with such care and help us make the series the best documentary record of U.S. foreign policy,” Dr. Keefer wrote.

CIA classification policy generally lacks rhyme or reason, so although the 1970 intelligence budget total has been declassified, the 1969 and the 1971 budget figures, for example, remain classified.

“Not since World War II has this nation relied so heavily on its Special Operations Forces,” according to Gen. Bryan D. Brown, Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM).

Special operations are military actions “conducted in hostile, denied, or politically sensitive environments to achieve military, diplomatic, informational, and/or economic objectives employing military capabilities for which there is no broad conventional force requirement,” as defined in the Department of Defense Dictionary of Military Terms (updated 11/09/06).

“These operations often require covert, clandestine, or low visibility capabilities.”

“Special operations differ from conventional operations in degree of physical and political risk, operational techniques, mode of employment, independence from friendly support, and dependence on detailed operational intelligence and indigenous assets.”

The continued development of special operations capabilities is sketched out in a new SOCOM strategic planning document. See “Capstone Concept for Special Operations 2006” (pdf).

The growing use of special operations personnel on intelligence collection missions has reportedly caused friction with the Central Intelligence Agency and “has also led to several embarrassing incidents for the United States, including a shootout in Paraguay and the exposure of a sensitive intelligence operation in East Africa,” according to the Los Angeles Times. See “U.S. seeks to rein in its military spy teams” by Greg Miller, Los Angeles Times, December 18.

Conversely, the role of the CIA in paramilitary activities has also led to turf battles and some potential blurring of the chain of command.

For general background, see “Special Operations Forces (SOF) and CIA Paramilitary Operations: Issues for Congress,” Congressional Research Service, updated December 6, 2006.

Some notable newly-updated reports from the Congressional Research Service that are not readily available in the public domain include these (all pdf).

“Coast Guard Deepwater Program: Background, Oversight Issues, and Options for Congress,” December 18, 2006.

“Radioactive Waste Streams: Waste Classification for Disposal,” updated December 13, 2006.

“Border Security: Barriers Along the U.S. International Border,” updated December 12, 2006.

“China and Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction and Missiles: Policy Issues,” updated December 11, 2006.

“Defense Procurement: Full Funding Policy — Background, Issues, and Options for Congress,” updated December 11, 2006.

“Foreign Students in the United States: Policies and Legislation,” updated December 8, 2006.

“Nuclear Arms Control: The Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty,” updated October 12, 2006.

A government attorney indicated yesterday that the National Reconnaissance Office will cease to oppose a Freedom of Information Act request from the Federation of American Scientists for unclassified NRO budget justification documents, and that it will provide the requested records as early as next week.

Last July, a federal court ruled (pdf) in favor of FAS and told the NRO that the budget documents are not “operational files” that would be exempt from processing under the FOIA. In September, the NRO filed a notice of appeal (pdf) seeking to overturn the court order.

But this week, after FAS filed a motion to compel the NRO to comply with the order, the agency said it would withdraw its appeal and provide the document.

The case will have a favorable ripple effect throughout the intelligence community, since other intelligence organizations such as the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency also claim that their budget records are “operational files” that are exempt from FOIA processing. Now that the court’s order on this issue stands unchallenged, such claims will be nullified.

One Secrecy News reader wrote to express his concern that we were using the law to force NRO to disclose records that should not be disclosed in the interests of national security. But that is not the case. FOIA exemptions for properly classified national security information and for intelligence sources and methods remain in place and in effect.

But NRO has now been forced to disclose all non-exempt budget information, as the law requires.

Selected case files from Aftergood v. National Reconnaissance Office may be found here.

The anticipated receipt of NRO budget material will be noted in Secrecy News when it occurs.