by Birgitta Jónsdóttir

February 1^st 2013 the entire parliamentary group of The Movement in the Icelandic Parliament, the Pirates of the EU; representatives from the Swedish Pirate Party, the former Secretary of State in Tunisia for Sport & Youth nominated Private Bradley Manning for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Following is the reasoning we sent to the committee explaining why we felt compelled to nominate Private Bradley Manning for this important recognition of an individual effort to have an impact for peace in our world. The lengthy personal statement to the pre-trial hearing February 28th by Bradley Manning in his own words validate that his motives were for the greater good of humankind.

Read his full statement 

Our letter to the Nobel Peace Prize Committee Reykjavík, Iceland 1^st of February 2013

Alleged WikiLeaker PFC Bradley Manning has won the 2012 Global Exchange People’s Choice Human Rights Award, and been nominated twice for the Nobel Peace Prize, but the struggle for his freedom is far from over. His pretrial hearings have major implications for the rights of soldiers as well as the public’s right to know important truths about our wars and other overseas engagements.

Shamefully, at the last hearing which took place April 24-26th, the government clarified that it does not believe that PFC Manning’s motives, or even whether or not the U.S. was actually damaged in any way by the releases, are relevant to its case for the “Aiding the Enemy” charge. The government contends that life in prison is warranted for soldiers who would release information that hypothetically could be used by the enemy. The prosecution also considers irrelevant the issue of whether making the information public might benefit citizens of the U.S. or its allies.

Furthermore, at the June 6-8th hearing the government is attempting to ban any discussion of whether harm was or was not caused to the U.S. from future court proceedings, saying it could neither help nor hurt either argument. This would prevent the defense from accessing government-commissioned assessments of the impacts of WikiLeaks’ releases. Neither the content nor the conclusions of these assessments have been made public, despite the public’s obvious interest in this information.

We must go to Fort Meade June 6-8th to support alleged WikiLeaks whistle-blower Bradley Manning, and the rights of conscientious citizens everywhere!

Bradley Manning Support Network » Join us at Fort Meade June 6-8th to support Bradley Manning!

Decision Emphasizes David House’s First Amendment-Protected Associations

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

BOSTON – A federal judge late Wednesday denied the government’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the suspicionless search and seizure of electronics belonging to activist David House when he reentered the U.S. after a vacation.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Massachusetts represent House in a suit charging that the government targeted House based on his lawful association with the Bradley Manning Support Network, an organization created to raise funds for the legal defense of the soldier accused of leaking material to WikiLeaks. The government had asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing that it has broad powers to search and seize laptops, phones and any other electronic device at the border without any justification.

“This ruling affirms that the constitution is still alive at the U.S. border,” said Catherine Crump, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, who argued the case along with John Reinstein of the ACLU of Massachusetts. “Despite the government’s broad assertions that it can take and search any laptop, diary or smartphone without any reasonable suspicion, the court said the government cannot use that power to target political speech.”

The decision allows the case to move forward to the evidence-gathering stage, which could reveal why House became the subject of a government inquiry and which government agencies copied or viewed the contents of his laptop, phone and camera.

While the court held that the government does not need suspicion to search a laptop at the border, it also held that the government’s power to search was not unlimited. U.S. District Court Judge Denise Casper wrote that the fact that “the initial search and seizure occurred at the border does not strip House of his First Amendment rights, particularly given the allegations in the complaint that he was targeted specifically because of his association with the Support Network.” The judge also acknowledged the complaint’s allegations that “the search of House’s laptop resulted in the disclosure of” the Support Network’s supporters and internal communications and that these disclosures “will deter further participation in and support of the organization.”

In November 2010, Department of Homeland Security agents stopped House at O’Hare International Airport in Chicago and questioned him about his political activities and beliefs. Officials then confiscated his laptop computer, camera and a USB drive and did not return them for nearly seven weeks. The government has not said what it did with House’s possessions during that period. House’s detention and interrogation and the seizure of his electronic papers and personal effects had no apparent connection with the protection of U.S. borders or the enforcement of customs laws.

The court ruled that even if the government could legally search House’s devices at the border, this does not mean that agents could take and keep those devices for nearly seven weeks. Without some reasonable relationship between the original search and the extended seizure, the judge said, government agents may not “seize personal electronic devices containing expressive material, target someone for their political association and seize his electronic devices and review the information pertinent to that association and its members and supporters simply because the initial search occurred at the border.”

The ruling is available at:
www.aclu.org/files/assets/house_v._napolitano_-_ruling_on_motion_to_dism…

More information on the case is at:
www.aclu.org/free-speech/house-v-napolitano

From:
Judge Rules in Favor of Bradley Manning Supporter, Allows Lawsuit Challenging Laptop Search | American Civil Liberties Union, March 29, 2012