Steve Aftergood mentions Bill Leonard's letter to the editor of the 
Washington Post in his newsletter today.  As I was, he seems to have 
been struck by the letter, calling it a "remarkable" letter.

Maarja

-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 11:14 AM
Subject: Secrecy News -- 08/25/06

SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2006, Issue No. 91
August 25, 2006

Secrecy News Blog:  http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/

Support Secrecy News:
http://www.fas.org/static/contrib_sec.jsp


**  COSTS OF SECRECY SKYROCKET TO $9 BILLION
**  ARMY REG ON CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION
**  HOMELAND SECURITY INTELLIGENCE (CRS)
**  U.S. CONVENTIONAL FORCES, NUCLEAR DETERRENCE AND CHINA (CRS)


COSTS OF SECRECY SKYROCKET TO $9 BILLION

The annual financial costs attributable to the national security
classification system reached a record high of $9.2 billion in 2005
according to a new report from the Information Security Oversight
Office (ISOO).

Classification-related costs include not merely the direct costs of
classifying information, which are modest, but also the derivative
costs of the personnel security clearance system, physical security
for classified material, classified computer security, and more.
Most of these costs are incurred within government, but some are
due to the handling of classified information within industry.

"The Government cost estimate for FY 2005 is $7.7 billion, which is a
$420 million, or 5.8 percent increase above the cost estimates
reported for FY 2004," the Information Security Oversight Office
reported.  "The industry estimate is up by $696 million."

"This makes the total 2005 cost estimate for Government and industry
$9.2 billion, which is $1.2 billion more than the total FY 2004 cost
estimate for Government and industry."

These figures do not include classification cost estimates for the
Central Intelligence Agency, because the CIA has classified its cost
data.

See "2005 Report on Cost Estimates for Security Classification
Activities," Information Security Oversight Office
(www.archives.gov/isoo), August 2006:

     http://www.fas.org/sgp/isoo/2005costs.pdf

If the classification system were functioning properly to enhance
national security, these billions of dollars might all be money well
spent.  But there is abundant reason to doubt that such is the case.

"There's over 50 percent of the information that, while it may meet
the criteria for classification, really should not be classified in
terms of what we lose," said ISOO director William Leonard at an
August 24, 2004 hearing of the House Government Reform Committee.

"The price we pay for classification outweighs any perception, any
advantage we perceive we gain," he told the Committee.

The Information Security Oversight Office, which was established by
Executive Order, reports to the President on national security
classification policy.

Mr. Leonard criticized the Washington Post in a remarkable letter to
the editor today for reporting "irrelevant" negative information
about the personal history of a critic of the classification system.

"Publishing it served no useful public purpose and could, in fact,
discourage citizens who take seriously their civic responsibility to
lodge complaints regarding the activities of their government," he
wrote.

     http://tinyurl.com/n4fcl


ARMY REG ON CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION

U.S. Army policy for dealing with military personnel who assert a
conscientious objection to military combat is set forth in a newly
updated Army regulation.

Criteria for likely approval or rejection of a conscientious
objection claim are described.  Claims that are insincere or "based
on objection to a certain war" will "not be favorably considered."

The Regulation accepts the reality of conscientious objection with
due respect.

"Care must be exercised not to deny the existence of beliefs simply
because those beliefs are incompatible with one's own," it states.

In any case, "The burden of establishing a claim of conscientious
objection as grounds for separation or assignment to noncombatant
training and service is on the applicant."

See "Conscientious Objection," Army Regulation 600-43, 21 August
2006:

     http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/ar600-43.pdf


HOMELAND SECURITY INTELLIGENCE (CRS)

The first in a new series of Congressional Research Service reports
on homeland security intelligence presents a broad introduction to
the subject.

"The proliferation of intelligence and information fusion centers
across the country indicate that state and local leaders believe
there is value to centralizing intelligence gathering and analysis
in a manner that assists them in preventing and responding to local
manifestations of terrorist threats to their people, infrastructure,
and other assets," the CRS report suggests.

See "Homeland Security Intelligence: Perceptions, Statutory
Definitions, and Approaches," August 18, 2006:

     http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RL33616.pdf


U.S. CONVENTIONAL FORCES, NUCLEAR DETERRENCE AND CHINA (CRS)

A new Congressional Research Service report proposes an analytical
framework for assessing the comparative strengths of U.S.
conventional and nuclear forces in the context of a hypothetical
future conflict with China.

The authors consider "the possible role that U.S. nuclear and
conventional forces might play in four stages of potential
conflicts: deterrence, prior to the start of the conflict; crisis
stability in the early stages of the conflict; warfighting during
the height of the conflict; and war termination, through either a
negotiated settlement or a battlefield victory."

The new report "highlights a number of policy issues that may bear
consideration in the ongoing debate regarding military
investments," but refrains from drawing specific conclusions.

CRS does not make its reports directly available to the public.  A
copy was obtained by Secrecy News.

See "U.S. Conventional Forces and Nuclear Deterrence: A China Case
Study," August 11, 2006:

     http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33607.pdf



_______________________________________________
Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the
Federation of American Scientists.

To SUBSCRIBE to Secrecy News, send email to
     [log in to unmask]
with "subscribe" in the body of the message.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email message to
     [log in to unmask]

OR email your request to [log in to unmask]

Secrecy News is archived at:
     http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html

Secrecy News is available in blog format at:
     http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/

SUPPORT Secrecy News with a donation here:
     http://www.fas.org/static/contrib_sec.jsp

_______________________
Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
web:    www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
email:  [log in to unmask]
voice:  (202) 454-4691

________________________________________________________________________
Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email 
and IM. All on demand. Always Free.

A posting from the Archives & Archivists LISTSERV List sponsored by the Society of American Archivists, www.archivists.org.
For the terms of participation, please refer to http://www.archivists.org/listservs/arch_listserv_terms.asp.

To subscribe or unsubscribe, send e-mail to [log in to unmask]
      In body of message:  SUB ARCHIVES firstname lastname
                    *or*:  UNSUB ARCHIVES
To post a message, send e-mail to [log in to unmask]

Or to do *anything* (and enjoy doing it!), use the web interface at
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/archives.html

Problems?  Send e-mail to Robert F Schmidt <[log in to unmask]>