• 2/3, Colleen O’Connor, Denver Post, Privacy worries may stall commercial use of drone aircraft
• 2/3, James Kitfield, National Journal, Targeted Killings: Obama’s Endless War
• 2/3, NPR Staff, NPR, Panetta: ‘My Mission Has Always Been To Keep The Country Safe’
• 2/2, The Associated Press, Detroit Free Press, Michigan Supreme Court rejects appeal in mosque controversy
• 2/1, Emilie Rensink, Examiner.com, Washington state’s anti-NDAA bill introduced with viral support
• 2/1, Matt Sledge, Huffington Post, Ayotte, Graham and McCain Will Participate In Hedges Oral Arguments

• 2/1, Josh Levy, Save the Internet, A Push for Privacy in the Wake of the Carrier IQ Controversy
• 2/1, Rose Aguilar, TruthOut, What Does the Activism Surrounding SOPA Reveal About the Future of Online Organizing?
• 2/1, Jacob Witte, Iowa State Daily, Obama no better than Bush concerning civil liberties
• 2/1, Karen DeYoung, Washington Post, ACLU sues to force release of drone attack records
• 2/1, Nat Hentoff, Southern Standard, Too much government surveillance
• 1/30, Glenn Greenwald, Salon, Leon Panetta’s explicitly authoritarian decree
• 1/24, Cindy Boren, Washington Post, Tim Thomas says he skipped White House trip because ‘government has grown out of control’

José Padilla, convicted terrorist and United States citizen, alleged in a lawsuit that he was detained unconstitutionally and without due process.  The Fourth Circuit Court dismissed the suit, which named former and current Secretaries of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Leon Panetta as defendants, thus protecting executive decisions from judicial scrutiny. Padilla claims that he was unlawfully detained and tortured in a South Carolina military jail for over three years. The American Civil Liberties Union issued a statement criticizing the ruling:

“Today is a sad day for the rule of law and for those who believe that the courts should protect American citizens from torture by their own government,” said ACLU National Security Project Litigation Director Ben Wizner, who argued the appeal in court. “By dismissing this lawsuit, the appeals court handed the government a blank check to commit any abuse in the name of national security, even the brutal torture of a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil. This impunity is not only anathema to a democracy governed by laws, but contrary to history’s lesson that in times of fear our values are a strength, not a hindrance.”

This case is about establishing the limits on the indefinite detention of US citizens under military custody—an especially critical question in light of the recent passage of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).  Section 1301(d) of the NDAA suggests that executive powers are not to be expanded beyond their current reach, but the Fourth Circuit’s ruling suggests, or at least does not deny, that those powers include authorizing the detention of American citizens without due process.  See Shahid Buttar’s analysis of this and other concerns related to the passage of the NDAA:

But presidents have already asserted the authority to detain US civilians in military custody. Just ask Jose Padilla. Another red herring emerges in section 1032(b)(1): “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.” That’s a welcome change from earlier versions of the NDAA, but it doesn’t constrain the discretionary authority to detain US citizens created separately (by section 1031).