Freeing space for dissidents?

"US prisons are operating at 40 percent above capacity, with half of all inmates locked up for drug-related crimes. Attorney General Eric Holder has proposed changes to the criminal justice system that would reduce sentences for non-violent crimes."

Facing overcrowded prisons, US wants to cut drug sentences

US prisons are operating at 40 percent above capacity, with half of all inmates locked up for drug-related crimes. Attorney General Eric Holder has proposed changes to the criminal justice system that would reduce sentences for non-violent crimes.

RT,

12 August, 2013

.

In an announcement scheduled for delivery on Monday, Holder outlined a plan to free up prisons and keep non-violent drug offenders from ending up in jail cells. Under a major policy shift, federal prosecutors will no longer push for “mandatory minimum” sentences for low-level drug offenders, and will instead send more people to drug treatment and community service programs. Additionally, Holder wants prisons to release elderly, non-violent offenders.

“Too many Americans go to too many prisons for far too long, and for no good law enforcement reason,” Holder said in his speech, which was released in advance of his 1 p.m. ET delivery at the American Bar Association in San Francisco. “While the aggressive enforcement of federal criminal statutes remains necessary, we cannot simply prosecute or incarcerate our way to becoming a safer nation.”

In his speech, Holder reflected a view long held by civil rights groups that have advocated for lesser sentences for non-violent crimes, claiming that the long prison terms have prevented low-income and minority communities from advancing. Mirroring that view, Holder said that “a vicious cycle of poverty, criminality and incarceration traps too many Americans and weakens too many communities” and that “many aspects of our criminal justice system may actually exacerbate this problem, rather than alleviate it.”

US federal prisons are significantly overcrowded, holding 40 percent more inmates than they were designed to incarcerate. More than 219,000 people are currently locked up in federal prisons, with nearly half of them serving time for drug-related offenses. Another 11 percent are being held for immigration offenses, and a large number are also being held for substance use disorders, the Associated Press reports. Over the past 30 years, the US has experienced a 500 percent increase in the number of inmates held in federal custody.

Despite the numbers, federal judges have often been forced to apply mandatory minimum sentences against their own will. Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) have introduced legislation that would allow judges to exercise greater discretion in applying these minimums in cases involving non-violent drug offenders. The legislation, called the Smarter Sentencing Act or the Durban-Lee-Leahy bill, was introduced earlier this month.

Holder plans to cite the lawmakers’ bipartisan proposals in his speech.

“By reserving the most severe penalties for serious, high-level or violent drug traffickers, we can better promote public safety, deterrence and rehabilitation, while making our expenditures smarter and more productive,” Holders says in the speech. A study published by the American Journal of Public Health in June found that the state of California saved $2,300 per offender over a 30-month conviction period by sending the convict to treatment rather than a prison cell. The mandatory sentences were adopted during the “war on drugs” in the 1980s, but the US simply lacks the funds and the capacity to imprison low-level drug offenders.

“Mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug offenses have played a huge role in the explosion of the U.S. prison population,” Durbin said in a news release. “Once seen as a strong deterrent, these mandatory sentences have too often been unfair, fiscally irresponsible and a threat to public safety. Given tight budgets and overcrowded prison cells, judges should be given the authority to conduct an individualized review in sentencing certain drug offenders and not be bound to outdated laws that have proven not to work and cost taxpayers billions.”

Edward Snowden's email provider shuts down

Encrypted email service used by Snowden mysteriously shuts down

The highly encrypted email service reportedly used by NSA leaker Edward Snowden has gone offline - and its administrator claims the company is legally barred from explaining why.

RT,

8 August, 2013

On Thursday, the homepage of Lavabit.com was changed to a letter from the company’s owner announcing that the site’s operations have ceased following a six-week long ordeal that has prompted the company to take legal action in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Now in the midst of an escalating fight from the federal government aimed at cracking down on encrypted communications, one of the last free and secure services has thrown in the towel under mysterious circumstances.

“I have been forced to make a difficult decision: to become complicit in crimes against the American people or walk away from nearly ten years of hard work by shutting down Lavabit. After significant soul searching, I have decided to suspend operations,” owner and operator Ladar Levison of Dallas, Texas wrote in the statement. “I wish that I could legally share with you the events that led to my decision. I cannot.”

“I feel you deserve to know what’s going on--the First Amendment is supposed to guarantee me the freedom to speak out in situations like this. Unfortunately, Congress has passed laws that say otherwise,” wrote Levison. “As things currently stand, I cannot share my experiences over the last six weeks, even though I have twice made the appropriate requests.”

Levison’s statement comes two months after Snowden - a former analyst at intelligence contractor Booz Allen Hamilton - revealed himself to be the source of leaked NSA documents disclosing vast surveillance programs operated by the United States government. A month later, the Global Post published an article in which a Lavabit.com email address thought to be registered to Snowden was revealed.

The Global Post wrote on July 12 that the Sheremetyevo Airport press conference hosted by Snowden later that day was announced to human rights groups under the email address "edsnowden@lavabit.com" and signed by “Edward Joseph Snowden.” Washington Post foreign affairs blogger Max Fisher and Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald have both since reported that Lavabit is indeed Snowden's email provider.

Max Fisher        ✔ @Max_Fisher

Tech people: What do you know/think about Lavabit, the email service Snowden uses?

2:56 утра - 13 июля 2013

7 РЕТВИТОВ 2 ИЗБРАННЫХ

Glenn Greenwald        ✔ @ggreenwald

Amazing: Lavabit - the email service used by Snowden - shuts down rather than comply with US orders http://boingboing.net/2013/08/08/lavabit-email-service-snowden.html …

7:51 утра - 9 августа 2013

739 РЕТВИТОВ 148 ИЗБРАННЫХ

During a Q&A session hosted by The Guardian last month, Snowden wrote, “Encryption works. Properly implemented strong crypto systems are one of the few things that you can rely on.”

Although Lavabit’s website is now almost entirely inaccessible, a cached version hosted by Google provides background on why and how the service provided highly secure encryption to its users.

“In an era where Microsoft and Yahoo’s e-mail services sell access past their spam filters, Google profiles user’s inboxes for targeted advertising, and AT&T allows the government to tap phone calls without a court warrant; we decided to take a stand,” one page reads. “Lavabit has developed a system so secure that it prevents everyone, including us, from reading the e-mail of the people that use it.”

By combining three different encryption schemes with Elliptical Curve Cryptography, Lavabit provided a service purposely designed to provide protection against government surveillance.

“The result is that once a message is stored on our servers in this fashion, it can’t be recovered without knowing a user's password. This provides a priceless level of security, particularly for customers that use e-mail to exchange sensitive information,” the company wrote.

“The key element of the PATRIOT Act is that it allows the FBI to issue National Security Letters (NSLs). NSLs are used to force an Internet Service Provider, like Lavabit, to surrender all private information related to a particular user. The problem is that NSLs come without the oversight of a court and can be issued in secret. Issuing an NSL in secret effectively denies the accused an opportunity to defend himself in court. Fortunately, the courts ruled NSLs unconstitutional in 2005; but not before illustrating the need for a technological guarantee of privacy,” the cached page reads.

“Lavabit believes that a civil society depends on the open, free and private flow of ideas. The type of monitoring promoted by the PATRIOT Act restricts that flow of ideas because it intimidates those afraid of retaliation. To counteract this chilling effect, Lavabit developed its secure e-mail platform. We feel e-mail has evolved into a critical channel for the communication of ideas in a healthy democracy. It’s precisely because of e-mail’s importance that we strive so hard to protect private e-mails from eavesdropping.”

Lavabit noted that brute force attacks could theoretically allow a third-party to see password-protected emails but said that such attacks shouldn't be happening anytime soon.

“In practice, the key lengths Lavabit has chosen equal enough possible inputs that a brute-force attack shouldn’t be feasible for a long time to come.”

According to Snowden’s Q&A with The Guardian last month, “endpoint security is so terrifically weak that NSA can frequently find ways around it.”

Now as Levison and crew prepare for a fight in appeals court, he suggests that very few are safe from having even secure emails stolen by the US government.

“This experience has taught me one very important lesson: without congressional action or a strong judicial precedent, I would _strongly_ recommend against anyone trusting their private data to a company with physical ties to the United States,” Snowden said in the statement.

On a since removed page from Lavabit.com, the company wrote, “Like insurance, we hope our secure e-mail platform is something you’ll never need. However, should the issue ever arise, like insurance, you’ll be glad you have it.”

Earlier this year, Federal Bureau of Investigation general counsel Andrew Weismann said the US Justice Department wants to be able to decrypt all messages sent over the internet in real-time by the end of 2014.

“The problem with not having [that ability in America] is that we’re making the ability to intercept communications with a court order increasingly obsolete,” Weissman said. “Those communications are being used for criminal conversations, by definition…and so this huge legal apparatus that many of you know about to prevent crimes, to prevent terrorist attacks is becoming increasingly hampered and increasingly marginalized the more we have technology that is not covered” under current law.

According to a cached page of the company's history, Lavabit was launched in 2004 and most recently handled service for upwards of 60,000 individuals at a rate of around 200,000 emails a day.

“How many Lavabit users have just been impacted by the hand of attempted government oppression in secret?” security researcher Jacob Appelbaum tweeted on Thursday. “The path chosen by Lavabit is an honorable choice. It is also horrible that they must now ruin their company to try to keep their integrity.”

Jacob Appelbaum @ioerror

How many Lavabit users have just been impacted by the hand of attempted government oppression in secret?

7:19 утра - 9 августа 2013

42 РЕТВИТА 6 ИЗБРАННЫХ

Jacob Appelbaum @ioerror

The path chosen by Lavabit is an honorable choice. It is also horrible that they must now ruin their company to try to keep their integrity.

7:14 утра - 9 августа 2013

Lavabit representatives did not immediately return requests for comment

Ruling against whistleblowers

US judge rules that Espionage Act does not require proof of any harm done

In another potential setback for whistleblowers, a US judge has made a ruling that essentially lowers the requirements for government prosecutors to prove damage to national security committed by alleged leakers.

RT,

30 July 2013

The case concerns Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, who in 2010 was indicted on two counts of disclosing national defense secrets to Fox News reporter James Rosen the year prior. Kim’s information was based on an intelligence report which was available to a limited number of government employees.

Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruled that the prosecution does not need to show that the information Kim allegedly leaked could damage US national security or benefit a foreign power, even potentially.

Her ruling went against the 1985 v. Morison case, in which Samuel L. Morison was convicted of unauthorized disclosure of satellite imagery to Jane’s Defence Weekly. Kollar-Kotelly said that she disagreed with the precedent it set, which required prosecution to prove harm to national security.

“The Court declines to adopt the Morison court’s construction of information relating to the ‘national defense’ insofar as it requires the government to show that disclosure of the information would be potentially damaging to the United States or useful to an enemy of the United States,” Judge Kollar-Kotelly wrote.

That decision could well modify interpretation of the 1917 Espionage Act for future whistleblower cases. Kim’s legal defense says that without the need to prove harm done to national security, the Espionage Act is essentially converted into a “Government Secrets Act.”

“The requirement that disclosure of the information be ‘potentially damaging’ is ‘implicit in the purpose of the statute and assures that the government cannot abuse the statute by penalizing citizens for discussing information the government has no compelling reason to keep confidential,” wrote the defense.

In her ruling, the judge accepts the prosecution’s argument that interpretation of the Espionage Act does not necessitate that the government prove its case, contrary to 1985 v. Morison and subsequent cases since then.

“By its terms, Section 793(d) [of the Espionage Act] does not require the United States to prove any harm, whether potential or not…” wrote the prosecution.

Kim’s story has become one of the most well known instances of an Obama administration clampdown on government information leaks, and attracted national attention following disclosure of a warrant for Rosen’s personal emails and the potential to prosecute the reporter as a co-conspirator. That warrant came to light on the heels of evidence showing far wider surveillance of phone records pertaining to the Associated Press.

Federal prosecutors have argued that Kim’s leak falls under harm to national defense, while Kim and his defense team have countered that the information was well known within Washington, and that the Justice Department is exceeding the spirit and definition of espionage laws.

Kim allegedly told Rosen in 2009 that North Korea was planning to test a nuclear warhead - information which then became key for Rosen’s subsequent article entitled “North Korea Intends to Match UN Resolution with New Nuclear Test.”

Last week, Kim’s defense attorney, Abbe Lowell, argued that other national security officials could have communicated with Fox News reporter James Rosen prior to him publishing his story on North Korea’s nuclear program.

Court documents from Kim’s trial included details of contacts made by Fox News either directly or to the offices of three other potential sources in government, all who denied any involvement in the leak. Those sources included former deputy national security adviser Denis McDonough, former counterterrorism adviser John Brennan – who now serves as CIA director - and former deputy national security adviser for operations, Mark Lippert - now an assistant secretary of defense.

The case brought against Kim is unlikely to go to trial before early 2014, according to The Washington Post.

The Trial of Bradley Manning

Judge refuses to drop charge of aiding the enemy against Manning

Army Private first class Bradley Manning will continue to be tried for aiding the enemy, a military judge ruled Thursday morning, leaving open the possibility of life in prison for the admitted source of a major intelligence leak.

RT,

18 July, 2013

Despite an attempt from the defense to have the most serious of charges against Pfc. Manning dropped, Col. Denise Lind ruled from a Ft. Meade, Maryland courtroom early Thursday that the former Army intelligence analyst will continue to be tried for aiding the enemy.

Liz Wahl @lizwahl

BREAKING: Judge denies motion to find Bradley Manning not guilty of 'aiding the enemy'

2:09 утра - 19 июля 2013

9 РЕТВИТОВ

Government prosecutors say Manning, 25, indirectly aided al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula by sharing hundreds of thousands of classified documents with the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks in late 2009 and early 2010. In February of this year, Manning admitted to what’s been called the largest intelligence leak in US history and pleaded guilty to 10 lesser-included offenses in hopes of receiving a lighter sentencing when his military court-martial concludes later this summer.

When the prosecution wrapped up their case earlier this month, defense attorney David Coombs filed motions asking the court to dismiss the charge of aiding the enemy and another allegation against Manning that he violated section 1030 of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act when collaborating with WikiLeaks.

“[T]here is an ‘absence of some evidence which, together with all reasonable inferences and applicable presumptions, could reasonably tend to establish every essential element of an offense charged,” Coombs told the court.

With Lind’s Thursday morning rejection, however, Manning will continue to stand trial against both of those counts and around 20 others.

The defense called 10 witnesses last week in only three day before resting their case. Next the government will begin its rebuttal case and soon the sentencing phase of the court-martial will commence. But although Col. Lind has refused to grant the defense’s request to drop the most serious of charges, she may elect later in the trial to find Manning not guilty of aiding the enemy.

Last week, Coombs called Harvard Law professor Yochai Benkler to the stand in order to testify about the role of WikiLeaks in twenty-first century journalism. In the wake of the government portraying WikiLeaks as an organization that facilitates the efforts of terrorist groups, Benkler warned that a guilty conviction of aiding the enemy could have major repercussions in the world of reporting.

Benkler told Lind that “the cost of finding Pfc. Manning guilty of aiding the enemy would impose” too great a burden on the “willingness of people of good conscience but not infinite courage to come forward,” and “would severely undermine the way in which leak-based investigative journalism has worked in the tradition of free press in the United States.”

“[I]f handing materials over to an organization that can be read by anyone with an internet connection, means that you are handing [it] over to the enemy — that essentially means that any leak to a media organization that can be read by any enemy anywhere in the world, becomes automatically aiding the enemy,” Benkler said.

“The government's whole argument seems to be premised on creating WikiLeaks as a bad organization,” insisted Coombs.

Julian Assange, the Australian founder of WikiLeaks, said in a conference call to RT last month that “The broad case establishes a precedent that publishing national security related information about the United States is espionage.”

Journalist Alexa O’Brien tweeted from Ft. Meade on Thursday that, if convicted on all counts, Pfc. Manning could receive a sentence of 154 years-to-life. The lesser-or-included charges he pleaded guilty to earlier this year would carry a maximum of only 20.

Alexa O'Brien @carwinb

That means that Manning is exposed to 154 years (not 149 years) plus life. #Manning

1:25 утра - 19 июля 2013

30 РЕТВИТОВ 5 ИЗБРАННЫХ

Indefinite detention : “It is a black day for those who care about liberty,”

Obama wins back the right to indefinitely detain under NDAA

The Obama administration has won the latest battle in their fight to indefinitely detain US citizens and foreigners suspected of being affiliated with terrorists under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.

RT,

17 July, 2013

The Obama administration has won the latest battle in their fight to indefinitely detain US citizens and foreigners suspected of being affiliated with terrorists under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.

Congress granted the president the authority to arrest and hold individuals accused of terrorism without due process under the NDAA, but Mr. Obama said in an accompanying signing statement that he will not abuse these privileges to keep American citizens imprisoned indefinitely. These assurances, however, were not enough to keep a group of journalists and human rights activists from filing a federal lawsuit last year, which contested the constitutionality of Section 1021, the particular provision that provides for such broad power.

A federal judge sided with the plaintiffs originally by granting an injunction against Section 1021, prompting the Obama administration to request an appeal last year. On Wednesday this week, an appeals court in New York ruled in favor of the government and once again allowed the White House to legally indefinitely detain persons that fit in the category of enemy combatants or merely provide them with support

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT - NDAA - July 167, 2013

Now with this week’s appellate decision, plaintiffs intend on taking their case to the Supreme Court. Should the high court agree to hear their argument, the top justices in the US may finally weigh in on the controversial counterterrorism law.

The so-called “indefinite detention” provision of last year’s National Defense Authorization Act has been at the center of debate since before President Barack Obama autographed the bill in December 2011, but a federal lawsuit filed by Pulitzer Prize-winning war correspondent Chris Hedges and others only two weeks after it went into effect remains as relevant as ever in light of a decision delivered Wednesday by the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Chris Hedges, former New York Times reporter and current Truthdig columnist (Reuters / Shannon Stapleton)

The plaintiffs in case had previously been successful in convincing a federal district judge to keep Section 1021 from being put on the books, but the latest ruling negates an earlier injunction and once again reestablished the government’s right to indefinitely detain people under the NDAA.

Tangerine Bolen, a co-plaintiff in the case alongside Hedges, told RT, “Losing one battle is not losing the war. This war is an assault on truth itself. It flaunts reason, sanity and basic decency. We will not stand down in the face of these egregious assaults on our rights and liberties.”

In a statement published to TruthDig, Hedges called the ruling “distressing” and said, “It means there is no recourse now either within the Executive, Legislative or Judicial branches of government to halt the steady assault on our civil liberties and most basic Constitutional rights.”

Section 1021 of the NDAA reads in part that the president of the US can indefinitely imprison any person who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces engaged in hostilities against the US or its coalition partners, as well as anyone who commits a "belligerent act" against the US under the law of war, "without trial, until the end of the hostilities.” The power to do as much was allegedly granted to the commander-in-chief after the Authorization to Use Military Force was signed into law shortly after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, but a team of plaintiffs have argued that Section 1021 provides the White House with broad, sweeping powers that put the First Amendment-guaranteed rights to free speech and assembly at risk while also opening the door for the unlawful prosecution of anyone who can be linked to an enemy of the state.

Only two weeks after the 2012 NDAA was signed into law, Hedges filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration challenging the constitutional validity of Section 1021.

“I have had dinner more times than I can count with people whom this country brands as terrorists … but that does not make me one,” he said at the time.

Naomi Wolf, an American author, told the Guardian last year that she has skipped meetings with individuals and dropped stories that she believed are newsworthy “for no other reason than to avoid potential repercussions under the bill.”

Author and political consultant Naomi Wolf (Reuters / Mike Segar)

Hedges first filed suit on Jan 13, 2012, and was eventually joined by a number of activists, reporters and human rights workers from both the US and abroad, including Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg, journalist Alexa O’Brien, Revolution Truth founder Bolen and Icelandic PM Birgitta Jónsdóttir. District Court Judge Katherine Forrest granted the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction against Section 1021 that May, only to make that decision permanent four months later. The Obama administration filed a stay against that injunction just days after, though, and the appeals court ruled this week that Judge Forrest’s decision must be vacated.


Carl Mayer, an attorney for the plaintiffs, 
previously told RT that he expected the White House to lose the appeal. “The Obama administration has now lost three times. They lost the temporary injunction, they lost the motion for reconsideration and they lost the hearing for permanent injunction. I say three strikes and you’re out,” he said. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xdGjTKIX__o

But with the court’s 3-0 ruling this week, a federal panel concluded that the plaintiffs involved in the suit do not have standing to challenge Section 1021. In doing so, however, they offered what is the most official interpretation yet of a law that has continuously attracted criticism for nearly two years now.

After years of debate, the appeals court said once and for all that the NDAA does not apply to American citizens, and rehashed the Obama administration’s insistence that it simply reaffirmed rights afforded to the government through the AUMF.

“Section 1021(e) provides that Section 1021 just does not speak — one way or the other — to the government’s authority to detain citizens, lawful resident aliens or any other persons captured or arrested in the United States,” the court ruled.

“We thus conclude, consistent with the text and buttressed in part by the legislative history, that Section 1021 means this: With respect to individuals who are not citizens, are not lawful resident aliens and are not captured or arrested within the United States, the President’s AUMF authority includes the authority to detain those responsible for 9/11 as well as those who were a part of, or substantially supported, al-Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners — a detention authority that Section 1021 concludes was granted by the original AUMF.”

“But with respect to citizens, lawful resident aliens, or individuals captured or arrested in the United States, Section 1021 simply says nothing at all,” it concluded.

The AUMF, however, is still open to interpretation. An earlier legal ruling concluded that the AUMF “clearly and unmistakable” authorized detaining those who were “part of or supporting forces hostile to the US.” Then a memo issued in March 2009 just weeks’ into Pres. Obama’s first term even added that the government has the authority “to detain persons who were part of or substantially supported” anyone engaged in hostilities against US or its partners.

“In any event, the March 2009 Memo took the view that ‘the AUMF is not limited to persons captured on the battlefields of Afghanistan’ nor to those ‘directly participating in hostilities,’” the appeals court noted. When the DC Circuit weighed in further down the road, it determined that the AUMF authorized detention for those who “purposefully and materially support” those hostile forces, although this week’s ruling makes note that the Circuit Court has failed to ever figure out what “support” exactly means.

“The government contends that Section 1021 simply reaffirms authority that the government already had under the AUMF, suggesting at times that the statute does next to nothing at all. Plaintiffs take a different view,” wrote the court this week.

Definitions aside, however, the appeals court wrote that Hedges and his American co-plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the indefinite detention provisions since a subsection of that rule, 1021(e), frees US citizens from detention under the NDAA.

“We recognize that Section 1021 perhaps could have been drafted in a way that would have made this clearer and that the absence of any reference to American citizens in Section 1021(b) led the district court astray in this case. Perhaps the last-minute inclusion of Section 1021(e) as an amendment introduced on the floor of the Senate explains the somewhat awkward construction,” wrote the court. “But that is neither here nor there. It is only our construction, just described, that properly gives effect to the text of all of the parts of Section 1021 and thus reflects congressional intent.”

At the same time, though, the appeals court acknowledged that Iceland’s Jónsdóttir, co-plaintiff Kai Wargalla of Germany and other foreign persons could be detained indefinitely under the NDAA. Although Jónsdóttir has argued that her well-documented affiliation with the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks — particularly with regards to classified material its published much to the chagrin of the US government — is enough to land her in hot water, the court said indefinite imprisonment in a military jail cell is an unrealistic fear and she therefore lacks standing.

Jónsdóttir, 46, has been a member of the Iceland parliament since 2009, the same year that US Army Private first class Bradley Manning began supplying materials to WikiLeaks. Jónsdóttir and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange worked directly with raw video footage supplied by Manning showing a US helicopter fatally wounding innocent civilians and journalists, which the website later released under the name “Collateral Murder.” And although Pfc. Manning is currently on trial for “aiding the enemy” by supplying WikiLeaks — and indirectly al-Qaeda — with that intelligence, the court said Jónsdóttir herself has nothing to fear. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=25EWUUBjPMo

“The claims of Jónsdóttir and Wargalla stand differently. Whereas Section 1021 says nothing about the government’s authority to detain citizens, it does have real meaning regarding the authority to detain individuals who are not citizens or lawful resident aliens and are apprehended abroad,” the court ruled.

Elsewhere, the judges wrote that the government insists that WikiLeaks and Manning provided “some support” to hostile forces by publishing classified intelligence, and that the 25-year-old Army private is indeed facing prosecution for such that could put him away for life.

“One perhaps might fear that Jónsdóttir’s and Wargalla’s efforts on behalf of WikiLeaks could be construed as making them indirect supporters of al-Qaeda and the Taliban as well,” wrote the court. “The government rejoins that the term ‘substantial support’ cannot be construed so in this particular context. Rather, it contends that the term must be understood — and limited — by reference to who would be detainable in analogous circumstances under the laws of war.”

Because “plaintiffs have provided no basis for believing that the government will place Jónsdóttir and Wargalla in military detention for their supposed substantial support,” the court has rejected their lawsuit.

“In sum, Hedges and O’Brien do not have Article III standing to challenge the statute because Section 1021 simply says nothing about the government’s authority to detain citizens,” concluded the court. “While Section 1021 does have meaningful effect regarding the authority to detain individuals who are not citizens or lawful resident aliens and are apprehended abroad, Jónsdóttir and Wargalla have not established standing on this record. We vacate the permanent injunction and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Meanwhile, the court’s decision did little to resolve what actually is allowed under the AUMF. In fact, the court said Section 1021 “does not foreclose the possibility that previous 'existing law' may permit the detention of American citizens,” making note of American Yaser Esam Hamdi and a three-year ordeal that left him without the right to habeas corpus or an attorney after he was picked up in post-9/11 Afghanistan on suspicion of terroristic ties. Instead, it confirmed that foreign citizens engaged with substantially supporting hostile forces— neither of which term is still properly defined — can be locked up in military jails.

Hedges previously said that he thought that the US was already using the NDAA to put some people away.

“If the Obama administration simply appealed it, as we expected, it would have raised this red flag,” Hedges said during an online Q-and-A session on Reddit when the White House last fought back. “But since they were so aggressive it means that once Judge Forrest declared the law invalid, if they were using it, as we expect, they could be held in contempt of court. This was quite disturbing, for it means, I suspect, that US citizens, probably dual nationals, are being held in military detention facilities almost certainly overseas and maybe at home.”

In a statement published to TruthDig on Wednesday, Hedges said that he plans to appeal. If accepted, the case of Hedges v Obama may go all the way to the Supreme Court. That’s a decision that will weigh with the justices, however, and Hedges said they are by no means required to hear their request.

“It is a black day for those who care about liberty,” wrote Hedges.

In her statement to RT, Bolen rejected the notion that she and others lack standing to challenge a law that plaintiffs believe is being used in secrecy.

“Good people have come forward to challenge the madness of the US government in the wake of 9/11 - people who have every reason to fear this atrocious panoply of laws and policies that are fundamentally eroding guaranteed liberties and basic human rights,” she said.

“The United States Government itself is behaving as a terror. Through indefinite detention of innocent civilians at Guantanamo, secret rendition, torture, murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq and illegal drone bombings - it is fundamentally eroding the rule of law while harming national security. Courts are contradicting themselves on whether the government has the right to indefinitely detain even its own citizens, Congress has supported dragnet surveillance and other assaults on everything we were founded on, and yet somehow, our fears are only ‘speculation,’” she said.