SECRECY NEWS – ARMY USE OF DRONES IN U.S. IS CONSTRAINED, NOT PROHIBITED

There are significant barriers to the Army's use of unmanned aerial
systems within the United States, according to a new Army manual, but they
are not prohibitive or categorical.

"Legal restrictions on the use of unmanned aircraft systems in domestic
operations are numerous," the manual states.  The question arises
particularly in the context of Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA),
refering to military assistance to government agencies in disaster response
and other domestic emergencies.

"Use of DOD intelligence capabilities for DSCA missions--such as incident
awareness and assessment, damage assessment, and search and
rescue--requires prior Secretary of Defense approval, together with
approval of both the mission and use of the exact DOD intelligence
community capabilities. Certain missions require not only approval of the
Secretary of Defense, but also coordination, certification, and possibly,
prior approval by the Attorney General of the United States."

As a general rule, "military forces cannot use military systems for
surveillance and pursuit of individuals."  This is precluded by the Posse
Comitatus Act, as reflected in DoD Directive 5525.5.

But there is a possibility that exceptions may arise, the manual
indicates.  "[Unmanned aircraft] operators cannot conduct surveillance on
specifically identified U.S. persons, unless expressly approved by the
Secretary of Defense, consistent with U.S. laws and regulations."

See U.S. Army Field Manual FM 3-52, Airspace Control, February 2013
(especially Appendix G):

        http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-52.pdf

"Commanders decide to employ unmanned aircraft systems judiciously. Use of
unmanned aircraft systems requires approval at high levels within the DOD
and the FAA prior to employment in DSCA," the manual states.

"Certain unmanned aircraft systems such as Global Hawk can operate far
above normal commercial traffic while providing situation assessment to
ground commanders. Intermediate systems such as the Predator have supported
recent disaster operations, dramatically increasing situational awareness
at the joint field office level. If available and authorized, these systems
can provide near-real-time surveillance to command posts for extended
periods. The approval process is not automatic."

The Army manual asserts that the perceived risks of drone failure or
accident are out of proportion to the actual documented risks.

"For example, from 2003 to 2010, small, unmanned aircraft systems flew
approximately 250,000 hours with only one incident of a collision with
another airspace user. However, the perception of the risk posed by small,
unmanned aircraft systems was much greater." (page A-1).

WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN EXECUTIVE ORDER AND A DIRECTIVE?

The Obama Administration issued policy statements this week on critical
infrastructure protection and cyber security, including measures to
encourage information sharing with the private sector and other steps to
improve policy coordination.  Curiously, the Administration issued both an
Executive order and a Presidential directive devoted to these topics.

Executive Order 13636 focuses on "Improving Critical Infrastructure
Cybersecurity" while Presidential Policy Directive 21 deals more broadly
with "Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience."

        http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-13636.htm

        http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/ppd/ppd-21.pdf

But the simultaneous release of the two types of Presidential instruction
on overlapping themes raises the question:  What is the difference between
an Executive Order and a Presidential Directive?

"There are probably two significant differences between an EO and a PD, at
least to my understanding," said Harold Relyea, who served for decades as a
Specialist in American National Government at the Congressional Research
Service.

"First, in almost all cases, for an EO to have legal effect, it must be
published in the Federal Register.  This is a statutory requirement.  A PD
does not have to meet this publication requirement, which means it can more
readily be 'born classified'."

"Second," he added, "is the matter of circulation and accountability.  EOs
are circulated to general counsels or similar agency attorneys, which can
be readily accomplished by FR publication.  Again, a PD may be more
selectively circulated, and this is done through developed routing
procedures.  Ultimately, EOs are captured not only in the FR, but also in
annual volumes (Title 3) of the CFR [Code of Federal Regulations].  PDs are
maintained in the files of the NSC staff and, God knows, if anywhere else! 
I might also add that a form for EOs has been prescribed (in an EO); no
form has been prescribed (as far as I know) for PDs."

A CRS overview of the various types of "Presidential Directives" authored
by Dr. Relyea in 2008 is available here:

        http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/98-611.pdf

The Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel wrote in a 2000 opinion
that executive orders and directives are equivalent in their force and
impact. "As this Office has consistently advised, it is our opinion that
there is no substantive difference in the legal effectiveness of an
executive order and a presidential directive that is not styled as an
executive order."

        http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/predirective.html

For reasons that are not immediately clear, President Obama has issued
presidential directives much less frequently than his predecessors.  The
latest directive, PDD-21, is only the 21st such Obama directive.  By
comparison, President George W. Bush had issued 42 directives by the first
January of his second term.  President Clinton had issued 53 directives by
the beginning of his second term.

NORTH KOREA'S NUCLEAR WEAPONS, AND MORE FROM CRS

New and updated reports from the Congressional Research Service obtained
by Secrecy News that have not been made readily available to the public
include the following.

North Korea's Nuclear Weapons: Technical Issues, February 12, 2013:

        http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL34256.pdf

Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation and Security Issues, February
13, 2013:

        http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL34248.pdf

Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty: Background and Current
Developments, February 12, 2013:

        http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL33548.pdf

Filling U.S. Senate Vacancies: Perspectives and Contemporary Developments,
February 13, 2013:

        http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40421.pdf

Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers, February 12, 2013:

        http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41431.pdf

Abortion and Family Planning-Related Provisions in U.S. Foreign Assistance
Law and Policy, February 12, 2013:

        http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41360.pdf

Latin America and the Caribbean: Key Issues for the 113th Congress,
February 8, 2013:

        http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42956.pdf

U.S. Manufacturing in International Perspective, February 11, 2013:

        http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42135.pdf

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

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

To SUBSCRIBE to Secrecy News, go to:
     http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/subscribe.html

To UNSUBSCRIBE, go to
     http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/unsubscribe.html

OR email your request to saftergood@fas.org

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

Support the FAS Project on Government Secrecy with a donation:
     http://www.fas.org/member/donate_today.html

_______________________
Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
web:    www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
email:  saftergood@fas.org
voice:  (202) 454-4691
twitter: @saftergood