FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

NAS Suppresses Public Documents on Chem/Bio Weapons

Move over ENRON and Arthur Andersen, the US National Academies of Science is vying for the document disappearance award of the year… a very disturbing situation for the Sunshine Project, and one which we think other persons working in the field should know about. And, for those interested, please contact me as we would love to talk about ways to generate pressure for release.

Last year, the Pentagon Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Program commissioned a study by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences, Naval Studies Board. The study, which is now in final preparation, is titled “An Assessment of Non-lethal Weapons Science and Technology”.

As part of the study, hundreds of documents on non-lethal weapons were deposited in the public access records file of the National Academies. These records are available for inspection and copying by the general public and form the written record of the basis of the recommendations of the panel in its report(s).

In March of this year, the Sunshine Project contacted the NAS Public Records Office and requested a bibliography of documents deposited for the non-lethal weapons study. We received this bibliography, which identified the title, date, and author of each study as well as its date of deposit, which often corresponded to the date of the Panel meeting at which the documents were apparently discussed.

We identified 77 documents from this list which suggested US interest in chemical and biological “non-lethal” weapons. These include such juicy titles as “Anti-Material Biocatysts”, “Anti-Material Chemical Agents”, “Enhanced Degradation of Military Material” (by the folks at the US Naval Research Laboratory, note the deletion of “Defense” found in the title of similar, publicly-available papers), “Metabolic Engineering”, “Legal Review of Proposed Chemical-Based Nonlethal Weapons”, “Establishment of Odor Response Profiles: Ethnic, Racial and Cultural Influences”, “Antipersonnel Calmative Agents” (by US Army Edgewood), etc… 77 documents in total.

We requested the documents on March 12th and were assured they would be quickly forthcoming after they had been retrieved from the file, copied, the pages counted, and a bill for .25 cents a page paid. Most of these documents are also found on the unclassified Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Program CD-ROM, over which we have been locked in a Freedom of Information battle with the Marine Corps for over a year.

After non-responses from NAS for several weeks, today I got on the phone to find out what was happening with our request. The NAS Public Affairs Office said the documents had been checked out by the Program Staff and were unavailable, perhaps for a few more days, perhaps longer. The Program Staff – which the Public Affairs Office did not want me to call – said that this was wrong. According to the panel staff, what really happened was that the NAS National Security Office had placed a “security hold” on the file. This hold came after our request for copies was made and is somewhat disturbing to us, as we did not publicize our request and do not know how or why the National Security Office was alerted to our interest.

I called Mr. Kevin Hale, NAS Security Chief, who confirmed that he placed the “security hold” on the public documents based on “concern expressed” by someone. But Hale refused to say who requested the hold or describe the basis on which he placed it. He also refused to describe, in even the most general terms, what issues has provoked the “security hold”. Hale said the “public” documents would undergo security review and that some may be post-facto expunged from the public record, denying public access to the raw material of the scientific deliberations of the Academy panel. Disturbingly, in contrast to the NAS Public Affairs Office and the Panel staff, Mr Hale had a third story about the documents’ location. According to Hale, the documents might not ever have been physically deposited with NAS. Hale refused to say more, and referred all questions to the NAS General Counsel’s Office.

I called Audrey Mosley, the NAS Counsel handling the situation. Ms. Mosley professed ignorance of detail of the situation and refused to discuss at whose instigation or why this most unusual hold had been placed. She said the documents would be reviewed for “security markings” and reiterated that they may physically have never been in NAS possession. Paradoxically, she also said that “somebody, probably Kevin Hale; but not me” would review the documents and determine if they would be deleted from the public record. This, of course, begs the question of how Hale could review documents he says NAS may not possess!!!!

In sum, it looks like NAS is pulling sensitive documents from the public access file. I am uncertain of the legalities; but am inclined to believe that at a minimum, this will undermine the integrity of panel conclusions and of NAS itself. In addition, some senior NAS staff appear to be lying about possession/location of documents. The differing stories cannot be reconciled. In addition, the “classification” issue is a red herring because the Marine Corps has stated that the documents are not classified (but isn’t releasing them either!).

NAS cannot identify a responsible person to explain its actions. The Public Access Office refers questions to the Panel staff. The Panel staff refers questions to the Security Office. The Security Office refers questions to General Counsel’s office. The General Counsel’s office does not answer questions and refers back to the Security Office. The account of the facts by each office is both lacking in detail and, in the little detail that they provide, contradictory.

It’s all very ugly and disturbing. If these documents disappear from the public record it will be a sad day for the US National Academies and another blow to US transparency on CBW. In some ways a more disturbing one than others, because this involves expunging items previously available for public view and which form the basis of recommendations from a very high, quasi-public US scientific authority.

Let us hope that it doesn’t happen. If it does, we are considering options for fighting it. I’ll be happy to provide the NAS bibliography to anyone interested.

Edward Hammond is director of The Sunshine Project, based in Austin, Texas. He can be reached at: hammond@sunshine-project.org

More articles by:

January 17, 2019
Stan Cox
That Green Growth at the Heart of the Green New Deal? It’s Malignant
David Schultz
Trump vs the Constitution: Why He Cannot Invoke the Emergencies Act to Build a Wall
Paul Cochrane
Europe’s Strategic Humanitarian Aid: Yemen vs. Syria
Tom Clifford
China: An Ancient Country, Getting Older
Greg Grandin
How Not to Build a “Great, Great Wall”
Ted Rall
Our Pointless, Very American Culture of Shame
John G. Russell
Just Another Brick in the Wall of Lies
Glenn Sacks
LA Teachers Strike: Black Smoke Pouring Out of LAUSD Headquarters
Patrick Walker
Referendum 2020: A Green New Deal vs. Racist, Classist Climate Genocide
Kevin Zeese - Margaret Flowers
Uniting for a Green New Deal
Matt Johnson
The Wall Already Exists — In Our Hearts and Minds
Jesse Jackson
Trump’s Flailing will get More Desperate and More Dangerous
Andrew Stewart
The Green New Deal Must be Centered on African American and Indigenous Workers to Differentiate Itself From the Democratic Party: Part Three
January 16, 2019
Patrick Bond
Jim Yong Kim’s Mixed Messages to the World Bank and the World
John Grant
Joe Biden, Crime Fighter from Hell
Alvaro Huerta
Brief History Notes on Mexican Immigration to the U.S.
Kenneth Surin
A Great Speaker of the UK’s House of Commons
Elizabeth Henderson
Why Sustainable Agriculture Should Support a Green New Deal
Binoy Kampmark
Trump, Bolton and the Syrian Confusion
Jeff Mackler
Trump’s Syria Exit Tweet Provokes Washington Panic
Barbara Nimri Aziz
How Long Can Nepal Blame Others for Its Woes?
Glenn Sacks
LA Teachers’ Strike: When Just One Man Says, “No”
Cesar Chelala
Violence Against Women: A Pandemic No Longer Hidden
Kim C. Domenico
To Make a Vineyard of the Curse: Fate, Fatalism and Freedom
Dave Lindorff
Criminalizing BDS Trashes Free Speech & Association
Thomas Knapp
Now More Than Ever, It’s Clear the FBI Must Go
Binoy Kampmark
Dances of Disinformation: The Partisan Politics of the Integrity Initiative
Andrew Stewart
The Green New Deal Must be Centered on African American and Indigenous Workers to Differentiate Itself From the Democratic Party: Part Two
Edward Curtin
A Gentrified Little Town Goes to Pot
January 15, 2019
Patrick Cockburn
Refugees Are in the English Channel Because of Western Interventions in the Middle East
Howard Lisnoff
The Faux Political System by the Numbers
Lawrence Davidson
Amos Oz and the Real Israel
John W. Whitehead
Beware the Emergency State
John Laforge
Loudmouths against Nuclear Lawlessness
Myles Hoenig
Labor in the Age of Trump
Jeff Cohen
Mainstream Media Bias on 2020 Democratic Race Already in High Gear
Dean Baker
Will Paying for Kidneys Reduce the Transplant Wait List?
George Ochenski
Trump’s Wall and the Montana Senate’s Theater of the Absurd
Binoy Kampmark
Dances of Disinformation: the Partisan Politics of the Integrity Initiative
Glenn Sacks
On the Picket Lines: Los Angeles Teachers Go On Strike for First Time in 30 Years
Jonah Raskin
Love in a Cold War Climate
Andrew Stewart
The Green New Deal Must be Centered on African American and Indigenous Workers to Differentiate Itself From the Democratic Party
January 14, 2019
Kenn Orphan
The Tears of Justin Trudeau
Julia Stein
California Needs a 10-Year Green New Deal
Dean Baker
Declining Birth Rates: Is the US in Danger of Running Out of People?
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail