This is only a Preview!

You must Publish this diary to make this visible to the public,
or click 'Edit Diary' to make further changes first.

Posting a Diary Entry

Daily Kos welcomes blog articles from readers, known as diaries. The Intro section to a diary should be about three paragraphs long, and is required. The body section is optional, as is the poll, which can have 1 to 15 choices. Descriptive tags are also required to help others find your diary by subject; please don't use "cute" tags.

When you're ready, scroll down below the tags and click Save & Preview. You can edit your diary after it's published by clicking Edit Diary. Polls cannot be edited once they are published.

If this is your first time creating a Diary since the Ajax upgrade, before you enter any text below, please press Ctrl-F5 and then hold down the Shift Key and press your browser's Reload button to refresh its cache with the new script files.


  1. One diary daily maximum.
  2. Substantive diaries only. If you don't have at least three solid, original paragraphs, you should probably post a comment in an Open Thread.
  3. No repetitive diaries. Take a moment to ensure your topic hasn't been blogged (you can search for Stories and Diaries that already cover this topic), though fresh original analysis is always welcome.
  4. Use the "Body" textbox if your diary entry is longer than three paragraphs.
  5. Any images in your posts must be hosted by an approved image hosting service (one of: imageshack.us, photobucket.com, flickr.com, smugmug.com, allyoucanupload.com, picturetrail.com, mac.com, webshots.com, editgrid.com).
  6. Copying and pasting entire copyrighted works is prohibited. If you do quote something, keep it brief, always provide a link to the original source, and use the <blockquote> tags to clearly identify the quoted material. Violating this rule is grounds for immediate banning.
  7. Be civil. Do not "call out" other users by name in diary titles. Do not use profanity in diary titles. Don't write diaries whose main purpose is to deliberately inflame.
For the complete list of DailyKos diary guidelines, please click here.

Please begin with an informative title:

I am in New York today to attend the oral arguments on the National Defense Authorization Act's (NDAA) indefinite detention provision, which is currently before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.  

I have not only a professional interest in this case, but also a personal one, in that the indefinite detention provision could have substantially impacted both my life and the lives of many other whistleblowers.  The Government Accountability Project filed an amicus brief in the case, which detailed both my case and the case of my client, Thomas Drake, and explained the dangers that such an expansive and vague provision poses to whistleblowers.

Later, I will be at The Culture Project participating in a discussion on today's hearing.  If you're in New York, please attend!  I will be joined by several amazing co-panelists, including Tom Drake, Daniel Ellsberg, Michael Moore, and Chris Hedges. More information on the event can be found here.


You must enter an Intro for your Diary Entry between 300 and 1150 characters long (that's approximately 50-175 words without any html or formatting markup).

Today's appeal stems from District Judge Katherine Forrest's 112-page opinion in Hedges v. Obama, which permanently enjoined the indefinite detention provision in the NDAA.  As I discussed in an earlier blog, Judge Forrest's opinion was well-reasoned and bold.  

Here are some of the key quotes from Judge Forrest's opinion:

Heedlessly to refuse to hear constitutional challenges to the Executive's conduct in the name of deference would be to abdicate this Court's responsibility to safeguard the rights it has sworn to uphold . . . Courts must safeguard core constitutional rights.
When squarely presented with an unavoidable constitutional question, courts are obliged to answer it.
Any period of detention (let alone years) for what could be an unconstitutional exercise of authority, finds no basis in the Constitution.
Here, the stakes get no higher: indefinite military detention -- potential detention during a war on terrorism that is not expected to end in the foreseeable future, if ever.  
The plaintiffs contend that the NDAA provision allows the government to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens on the suspicion that they provided support to terrorist groups or "associated forces."  They argue that the language of the provision is so vague that suspicious activities could potentially include such mundane activities as engaging in political advocacy or reporting the news.  Not surprisingly, the government has argued that Judge Forrest's opinion threatens national security.  

The courts must not give the government free reign to trample constitutional rights simply because it invokes national security concerns.  I can only hope that the Second Circuit will not allow the government's overused argument to prevent this issue from receiving the judicial scrutiny it deserves.  

Extended (Optional)

Your Email has been sent.