Lt. Dan Choi DADT Trial Update

• Related : Are Ronald Machen, Angela George, and Sanjay Sola helping President Obama politicize the US DOJ ? (Lt. Dan Choi FOIA Request Update)

Lt. Daniel Choi was found guilty in trial almost three years after DADT protest :

Update : Lt. Daniel Choi was found guilty and fined $100, which news reports indicate that Lt. Choi promises not to pay -- perhaps setting up another showdown with the Department of Justice, which seems intent on prosecutorial overreach as it is..

Demonstration In Front Of The White House Before Commencement Of Today's DADT Protest Trail Against Lt. Dan Choi :

Below are two pictures of the demonstration, which took place just minutes ago, with the White House in the background. In the first picture, dozens of activists demonstrated in support of Lt. Dan Choi, and, in the second, Lt. Dan Choi salutes the President of the United States, who resides in the White House.

About three dozen supporters stood in solidarity on Thursday, March 28, 2013, with Lt. Dan Choi, a U.S. Army veteran, who faces an unjust prosecution by the U.S. Department of Justice for a protest in which he participated against the military's former policy of ''Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'' Legal observers describe the government's case against Lt. Choi as an instance of prosecutorial over-reach by the Department of Justice.

Three years after Lt. Choi's DADT protest, which triggered his arrest and the resulting prosecution, the U.S. Attorney's Office refuses to dismiss the charges against him. The Assistant U.S. Attorney Angela S. George has been accused with waging an over-zealous prosecution against Lt. Choi, who is a notable LGBT civil rights activist. Under the Obama administration, other notable activists have been being prosecuted under worrisome attacks on demonstrations, curbs on Freedom of Speech, and growing restrictions on Freedom of Expression.

Related : Lt. Dan Choi Still on Trial Over 2010 Military Gay Ban Protest

The above photos were posted to Facebook this morning by Robin GetEqual McGehee.

DADT Trail Update From Lt. Dan Choi :

From Lt. Dan Choi :

On Thursday morning, March 28th in Federal Criminal Court, I stand trial for protesting back in 2010 against "Don't Ask Don't Tell."

The federal prosecutor has fiercely pushed this case for three years now, demanding the maximum punishment: 6 months in federal prison. To date, the government lost 5 of 6 protest cases against me, but they refuse to drop this one. Even after the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell," this seldom-used criminal charge against me remains: "Failure to Obey." My applications to re-enlist in the army were denied solely because of this trial. Whether it is to "teach me a lesson," or prevent my reinstatement, or bully those who practice free speech, the prosecution will not give up.

Nor will we. I ask you to please stand with me on this final lap, Thursday morning, March 28th.

The government is smart, powerful, intimidating and well resourced. But I stand on the principles learned in Basic Training: Defend freedom. Tell the truth. Never give up. Please join me, my fellow freedom fighters, international LGBT civil rights activists and people from all across the country who are flying in to send a clear message to the government: We will never stop defending our freedom to speak, serve and love.

Please let me know if you'll be there! I'll keep you updated about special gatherings and organizing.

Facebook Event: RSVP for ''USA v Lt. Dan Choi, DADT'' on Facebook

Even if you can't, please spread the word and forward this message, or consider writing a letter to the judge !

USA v. Lt. Daniel Choi
E. Barrett Prettyman Courthouse
United States District Court
333 Constitution Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20001

8:00 AM on Courthouse Lawn -
Yoga Meditation and Interfaith Prayer

9:00 AM in Courtroom 6, (Second Floor) -
Trial

Love is still worth fighting for.

Sincerely,
Lt. Dan Choi

Twitter WikiLeaks Legal and Subpoena Update

In violation of due process rights, U.S. Magistrate Theresa Buchanan backs U.S. Department of Justice request for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's friends' online records.

The U.S. Magistrate with judicial power over the U.S. government investigation into WikiLeaks has issued a new court order, which affirms a previous secret court order demanding WikiLeaks-related discovery from user accounts on social media journalism sites, such as Twitter, which have no known connection to WikiLeaks other than for typical online social networking activities, such as ''following.''

The Hon. Buchanan denied legal challenges to her previous court order by prominent owners of Twitter accounts. The magistrate said that U.S. government prosecutors were not seeking the "content of the communications," according to Reuters.

Even though Twitter account owners may follow each other on the website, it does not mean that the account owners are, by association, automatically engaged in questionable online behaviour, some online privacy activists say. There is a freedom of assembly in the United States, whether it be in an assembly hall or over a social media website.

In a further worrisome development, the magistrate also invalidated legal arguments that if Twitter were to provide to prosecutors the Internet Protocol addresses of Twitter account owners, then the act of unreasonable disclosure would constitute a "violation of the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure because it revealed their location," reported Reuters.

"Buchanan originally signed an order for prosecutors seeking about seven months of information from Twitter, including who they communicated with, who they followed, and who followed them. They also requested information about how they logged in, which could identify their location at the time," wrote the Reuters reporter Jeremy Pelofsky.

As reported before, what would the U.S. government be gaining from conducting a court-sanctioned surveillance for this kind of social media account information? Not for nothing, by focusing on subscribers and connection records, among other things, the U.S. government is casting a wide, indiscriminate net into cyberspace, and it is hoping to pull in something -- legal or otherwise, relevant or otherwise, applicable or otherwise. There is no focus to the court order ; its only objectives are to spy and to collect surveillance over both foreigners, over which the U.S. may have no jurisdiction, and citizens, who are being denied due process.

Secret FBI Subpoenas

The NYTimes doesn't believe that the U.S. Justice Department is conducting an illegal investigation of WikiLeaks. Oh, really ?

Running contrary to the characterisation of Birgitta Jonsdottir, a former WikiLeaks activist who is also a member of Iceland’s Parliament, that U.S. prosecutors were using a court order to collect ''personal information from an elected official without having any case,'' The New York Times has reported that the scope of the court order was not unlawful.

''The news that federal prosecutors have demanded that the microblogging site Twitter provide the account details of people connected to the WikiLeaks case, including its founder, Julian Assange, isn’t noteworthy because the government’s request was unusual or intrusive. It is noteworthy because it became public.''

Let's examine just a couple of aspects of the court order :

(i) ''The order asks for subscriber names, user names, screen names, mailing addresses, residential addresses and connection records along with other information related to the accounts.''

(ii) ''Stating that information held by Twitter was "relevant and material" to the WikiLeaks investigation, the district court ordered the startup to hand over:

• session times and connection records
• telephone numbers
• credit card information
• e-mail and IP addresses
• correspondence and notes of record''

What would the U.S. government be gaining from conducting a court-sanctioned surveillance for this kind of social media account information? Not for nothing, by focusing on subscribers and connection records, among other things, the U.S. government is casting a wide, indiscriminate net into cyberspace, and it is hoping to pull in something -- legal or otherwise, relevant or otherwise, applicable or otherwise. There is no focus to the court order ; its only objectives are to spy and to collect surveillance over both foreigners, over which the U.S. may have no jurisdiction, and citizens, who are being denied due process.

On a blog of a WikiLeaks supporter, someone asked, ''Is this not the same type of action that you, DOJ, find reprehensible in other countries?''

(As an aside, I wonder if The Times even appreciates the fact that, after the U.S. government's secret investigation of WikiLeaks has become ''public,'' those being targeted by the court order can now reasonably fight the unreasonableness of the indiscriminate scope of the court order. The owners of the social media accounts, on Twitter, Facebook, and Google, have legal rights, according to the law. How would the owners of the social media accounts know to fight the government's court order, if the government doesn't even serve the court order on the account owners? Look at how wikipedia gives context to due process violation : ''When a government harms a person, without following the exact course of the law, then that is a due process violation which offends the rule of law.'')