An omnibus edition of nine volumes of postwar histories declassified by the National Security Agency in 2010. The research was carried out by the Army Security Agency relying on captured documents and interviews with prisoners. This is an absolutely essential primary reference for anyone interested in cryptography as a vital aspect of World War II. The volumes include: Volume I: Synopsis Volume 2: Notes on German High Level Cryptography and Cryptanalysis Volume 3: The Signal Intelligence Agency of the Supreme Command, Armed Forces Volume 4: The Signal Intelligence Service of the Army High Command Volume 5: The German Air Force Signal Intelligence Service Volume 6: The Foreign Office Cryptanalytic Section Volume 7: Goering's "Research" Bureau Volume 8: Miscellaneous Volume 9: German Traffic Analysis of Russian Communications
Aligning the Governance Structure of the NNSA Laboratories to Meet 21st Century National Security Challenges is an independent assessment regarding the transition of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) laboratories - Los Alamos National Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and Sandia National Laboratories - to multiagency, federally funded research and development centers with direct sustainment and sponsorship by multiple national security agencies. This report makes recommendations for the governance of NNSA laboratories to better align with the evolving national security landscape and the laboratories' increasing engagement with the other national security agencies, while simultaneously encouraging the best technical solutions to national problems from the entire range of national security establishments. According to this report, the Department of Energy should remain the sole sponsor of the NNSA laboratories as federally funded research and development centers. The NNSA laboratories will remain a critically important resource to meet U.S. national security needs for many decades to come. The recommendations of Aligning the Governance Structure of the NNSA Laboratories to Meet 21st Century National Security Challenges will improve the governance of the laboratories and strengthen their strategic relationship with the non-DOE national security agencies.
The military, political, and economic preeminence of the United States during the post-World War II era is based to a substantial degree on its superior rate of achievement in science and technology, as well as on its capacity to translate these achievements into products and processes that contribute to economic prosperity and the national defense. The success of the U.S. scientific enterprise has been facilitated by many factors, important among them the opportunity for American scientists and engineers to pursue their research-and to communicate with each other-in a free and open environment. During the last two administrations, however, concern has arisen that the characteristically open U.S. scientific community has served as one of the channels through which critical information and know-how are flowing to the Soviet Union and to other potential adversary countries; openness in science is thus perceived to present short-term national security risks in addition to its longer-term national security benefits in improved U.S. military technology. The Panel on Scientific Communication and National Security was asked to examine the various aspects of the application of controls to scientific communication and to suggest how to balance competing national objectives so as to best serve the general welfare. The Panel held three two-day meetings in Washington at which it was briefed by representatives of the departments of Defense, State, and Commerce, and by representatives of the intelligence community, including the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency. The Panel also heard presentations by members of the research community and by university representatives. In addition to these briefings, the Rand Corporation prepared an independent analysis of the transfer of sensitive technology from the United States to the Soviet Union. To determine the views of scientists and administrators at major research universities, the Panel asked a group of faculty members and administrative officials at Cornell University to prepare a paper incorporating their own views and those of counterparts at other universities. The main thrust of the Panel's findings is completely reflected in this document. However, the Panel has also produced a classified version of the subpanel report based on the secret intelligence information it was given; this statement is available at the Academy to those with the appropriate security clearance.
This is the 2013-2014 case supplement to accompany National Security Law, Fifth Edition, and Counterterrorism Law, Second Edition. Table of Contents Preface Teacher's Guide for National Security Law (5th edition) Teacher's Guide for Counterterrorism Law (2d edition) Table of Cases Remarks of the President at the National Defense University, May 23, 2013 Clapper v. Amnesty International USA (S. Ct. Feb. 26, 2013) Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. (S. Ct. Apr. 17, 2013) Note on United States v. Hamdan (Hamdan II) (D.C. 36 Cir. Oct. 16, 2012) Leon Panetta, Secretary of Defense, Remarks to the Business Executives for National Security, Oct. 11, 2012 Harold Hongju Koh, International Law in Cyberspace, Sept. 18, 2012 Presidential Policy Directive PPD-20, U.S. Cyber Operations Policy (n.d.) Remarks by the President at the National Defense University, May 23, 2013 (targeting) U.S. Policy Standards and Procedures for the Use of Force in Counterterrorism Operations Outside the United States and Areas of Active Hostilities, May 22, 2013 Department of Justice, White Paper: Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen Who Is a Senior Operational Leader of Al-Qa'ida or an Associated Force, Draft Nov. 8, 2011 Note on "Gang of Four" notifications Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Intelligence Community Directive No. 112: Congressional Notification, Nov. 16, 2011 Introduction: The Fourth Amendment and National Security Note on United States v. Jones (S. Ct. Jan. 23, 2012) Note updating FISA reporting data Notes and Questions on NSA's STELLARWIND program Office of the Inspector General, National Security Agency/Central Security Service, 1109-0002 Working Draft, Mar. 24, 2009 Note on FISA Amendments Act renewal Notes and Questions on the Snowden Leaks and PRISM Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., Exhibit A, Procedures Used by the National Security Agency for Targeting Non-United States Persons Reasonably Believed to Be Located Outside the United States to Acquire Foreign Intelligence Information Pursuant to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, July 28, 2009 Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., Exhibit B, Minimization Procedures Used by the National Security Agency in Connection with Acquisitions of Foreign Intelligence Information Pursuant to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, July 28, 2009 Note on third-party records Note on Section 215 "metadata" Note on In re National Security Letter (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2013) United States v. Cotterman (9th Cir. Mar. 8, 2013) Ibrahim v. Department of Homeland Security (9th Cir. Feb 8, 2012) Al-Zahrani v. Rodriguez (D.C. Cir. Feb. 21, 2012) Note on Jurisdiction-Stripping and Bivens Claims In re Guantanamo Bay Detainee Continued Access to Counsel (D.D.C. Sept. 6, 2012) Notes and Questions National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, §§1021-1022,
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.