Days later, Anonymous announced that it would be releasing its new DDOS (Distributed Denial of Service) tool. Because of the Al-Qaeda posting, we contacted the New York Field Office of the FBI so they could investigate the potential threat. From that point on, we decided we needed to include the Human Element of Intelligence (HUMINT), and to infiltrate the protestors to map their ties to Anonymous, and to the postings on Shamuk and Al-Jahad."
Though all this sounds like the delusions of the mentally imbalanced, or perhaps mentally impaired, it was enough to trigger a response within the twisted minds of those who work from the shadows of our security and surveillance state. O'Brien, who was working at the time as a digital media architect for a publicly traded energy efficiency firm, was told by the company's director of federal programs, a former interrogator and foreign language specialist with the Massachusetts Army National Guard, that he had been asked about her by U.S. government agents numerous times. She was pulled off several projects and then pushed out of her job.
Now the engine of conspiracy, which feeds the machine, was in full gear. On Jan. 11, Australian Security Magazine published an article titled "Radical Islam: Global influence in domestic affairs" that directly tied U.S. Day of Rage to radical Islamic groups. It read, in part:
"More recently we found the same types of activity by radical Islamists during the planning of the U.S. Day of Rage that was scheduled for September 17th 2011. While it certainly did not take root and there were none of the violent clashes that took place during the UK riots, none the less the same types of people were there seeking to influence proceedings. Those aiming to influence the U.S. Day of Rage followed a similar pattern as the group and individuals we found trying to influence groups for CHOGM [Commonwealth Heads of Government]. Most were looking to promote violent confrontation, while some were spreading low level jihadist propaganda."
One of the plaintiffs in our lawsuit, Birgitta Jonsdottir, an Icelandic parliamentarian who has advocated transparency laws that would clear the way for WikiLeaks to operate in Iceland and helped produce a video about the 2007 Baghdad airstrike that killed two journalists and nine other civilians, did not appear in court. Author Naomi Wolf, who, along with Cornel West, has offered to join me, Noam Chomsky, Daniel Ellsberg, the Icelander and three others as plaintiffs, read JÃ³nsdÃ³ttir's affidavit to the court.
In January 2011 Jonsdottir, although she is not a U.S. citizen, was served by the United States Department of Justice with a subpoena demanding information "about all [her] tweets and more since November 1st 2009." The demanded information, which she has refused to provide, includes all mailing addresses and billing information, all connection records and session times, all IP addresses used to access Twitter, and all known email accounts, as well as the "means and source of payment," including banking records and credit cards. The Justice Department subpoenaed records for the period from Nov. 1, 2009, to the present. The foreign minister of Iceland advised Jonsdottir not to travel to the United States for the court hearing on Thursday, fearing she might be detained, especially after the Justice Department refused to issue a statement in writing stating that she would not be held if she appeared on American soil.
Perhaps the most chilling exchange on Thursday took place between government lawyers and Judge Forrest. The judge, who will probably rule in May, repeatedly asked for assurance that the plaintiffs would not be subject to detention under the NDAA. It was an assurance the two government lawyers refused to give. She asked U.S. Assistant Attorney Benjamin Torrance whether the government would see a book containing the sentence "I support the political goals of the Taliban" as providing "material support" for "associated forces."
Torrance did not rule out such an interpretation...
"You are unable to say that [such a book] consisting of political speech could not be captured under [NDAA section] 1021?" the judge asked.
"We can't say that," Torrance answered.
"Are you telling me that no U.S. citizen can be detained under 1021?" Forest asked.
"That's not a reasonable fear," the government lawyer said.
"Say it's reasonable to fear you will be unlucky [and face] detention, trial. What does "directly supported' mean?" she asked.
"We have not said anything about that "" Torrance answered.
"What do you think it means?" the judge asked. "Give me an example that distinguishes between direct and indirect support. Give me a single example."?
"We have not come to a position on that," he said.
"So assume you are a U.S. citizen trying not to run afoul of this law. What does it [the phrase] mean to you?" the judge said.