The past 72 hours has held one of the strangest disharmonic convergence of free speech events I have ever seen.

(1) On Tuesday, President Obama flourished his pretty rhetoric on free speech to the United Nations (UN):

Those in power have to resist the temptation to crack down on dissidents.

(2) A day later, the Sydney Morning Herald published US Air Force documents classifying Wikileaks and its founder Julian Assange as "enemies of the state," an action in sharp contrast to Obama's rhetoric about the importance of protecting dissent in a democracy.

Declassified US Air Force counter-intelligence documents, released under US freedom-of-information laws, reveal that military personnel who contact WikiLeaks or WikiLeaks supporters may be at risk of being charged with "communicating with the enemy", a military crime that carries a maximum sentence of death.

(3) The day after Obama's UN address, Assange addressed the UN from the Ecuadorian embassy where - fearing extradition to the U.S. - he has been granted asylum. Read FireDogLake's Kevin Gosztola for the highlights, including an understandable demand (especially in light of the fact that the U.S. government declared Assange the "enemy") that Obama live up to the free speech ideals Obama himself so eloquently presented to the UN:

President Obama spoke out strongly in favour of the freedom of expression. Those in power, he said, have to resist the temptation to crack down on dissent.

There are times for words and there are times for action. The time for words has run out. It is time for the US to cease its persecution of WikiLeaks, to cease its persecution of our people and it cease its persecution of our alleged sources.

It is time for President Obama to do the right thing and join the forces of change: not in fine words but in fine deeds.

Late Monday, Second Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Raymond J. Lohier granted the government's request to put on hold District Judge Katharine Forrest's recent opinion in Hedges v. Obama permanently enjoining the indefinite detention provision in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

Unsurprisingly, the government argued that Forrest's ruling compromised national security, specifically

saying that Judge Forrest’s ruling had gone beyond the new statute and jeopardized some of its existing authority to hold certain wartime prisoners under the 11-year-old Authorization for Use of Military Force against the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks.

The government's emergency request to the Second Circuit (even after Forrest rejected one such request) signals that all the parties recognize that Hedges v. Obama raises high-stakes separation of powers issues. While Lohier granted only an interim stay until a panel of Second Circuit judges can hear the case on September 28, 2012, his ruling is indicative of a disturbing tendency that too many courts have exhibited since 9/11 - deferring to the government's claims of harm to national security at the expense of individual freedoms.

There are too many Judge Lohiers and not enough Judge Forrests. Forrest rightly broke the mold of deference to the Executive in her courageous and well-reasoned opinion permanently enjoining the NDAA's indefinite detention provision. In the words of the New York Times editorial board:

[Judge Forrest's] willingness to take constitutional claims seriously was a refreshing departure from too many other judges in cases involving national security.

Some key quotes from Forrest's must-read opinion:

The Washington Post has a dangerously misguided editorial strongly defending the Executive's right to indefinitely detain even U.S. citizens under the Section 1021(b)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and criticizing Judge Katharine Forrest's recent opinion in Hedges v. Obama, which permanently enjoined Section 1021(b)(2)'s enforcement. WaPo mischaracterizes Section 1021(b)(2) of the NDAA as a well-reasoned compromise appropriately respectful of individual rights when in fact the NDAA grants the Executive branch broad, unchecked power to indefinitely detain Americans.

For those not following Hedges v. Obama, the lawsuit is a challenge to section 1021(b)(2) of the NDAA brought by

a group of writers, journalists, and activists whose work requires them to engage in writing, speech, and associational activities protected by the First Amendment. They have testified credibly to having an actual and reasonable fear that their activities will subject them to indefinite military detention pursuant to § 1021(b)(2).

WaPo accuses Judge Forrest of "judicial activism" - a stale accusation thrown out against any number of judges who have stood up to executive power. (Former Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren weathered constant accusations of "judicial activism" as his court consistently ruled for school desegregation).

Contrary to WaPo's cries of "judicial activism," Forrest was acting exactly as judges should act - as safeguards of individual constitutional rights. As the New York Times editorial board said:

The judge's willingness to take constitutional claims seriously was a refreshing departure from too many other judges in cases involving national security. If the government is unhappy with the ruling, it can largely blame its failure to adequately limit and define detention authority.

Forrest's 112-page opinion is thorough, well-reasoned, and brave.

Some key quotes from Forrest's must-read 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.

First Amendment rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and cannot be legislated away.

The public has a strong and undoubted interest in the clear preservation of First and Fifth Amendment rights.

Shortly after Forrest issued her opinion, the Obama administration requested a stay, a request Forrest sharply rebuked. The Obama administration has pledged to file an emergency stay request with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

Judge Forrest deserves credit for confronting and correctly deciding the constitutional question presented by indefinite detention of Americans. Indefinite detention without due process is antithetical to a democracy, no matter what spin the Executive or WaPo editorial board puts on it.

This post originally appeared on Radack's Daily Kos blog.

Jesselyn Radack is National Security & Human Rights Director for the Governent Accountability Project, the nation's leading whistleblower protection and advocacy organization.