ACLU v. NSA, FULL TEXT

Technorati Tags: President Bush and ACLU or LIEUTENANT GENERAL KEITH B. ALEXANDER and Attorney General, or Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and NSA, or privacy, and unconstitutional, or Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, and warrantless wiretapping or National Security Agency

Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the US District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division. ruled Thursday that the National Security Agency's program of warrantless wiretapping is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt. Judge Taylor rules it violates the rights to free speech and privacy as well as the separation of powers.

“Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution,” Judge Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion. Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, Biography

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN, SOUTHERN DIVISION

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION; AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION; AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MICHIGAN; COUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC RELATIONS; COUNCIL ON AMERICAN ISLAMIC RELATIONS MICHIGAN; GREENPEACE, INC.; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS; JAMES BAMFORD; LARRY DIAMOND; CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS; TARA MCKELVEY; and BARNETT R. RUBIN,

Plaintiffs, v.

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY / CENTRAL SECURITY SERVICE; and LIEUTENANT GENERAL KEITH B. ALEXANDER, in his official capacity as Director of the National Security Agency and Chief of the Central Security Service, Defendants.

Case No. 06-CV-10204, Hon. Anna Diggs Taylor

MEMORANDUM OPINION I. Introduction

This is a challenge to the legality of a secret program (hereinafter “TSP”) undisputedly inaugurated by the National Security Agency (hereinafter “NSA”) at least by 2002 and continuing today, which intercepts without benefit of warrant or other judicial approval, prior or subsequent, the international telephone and internet communications of numerous persons and organizations within this country. The TSP has been acknowledged by this Administration to have been authorized by the President’s secret order during 2002 and reauthorized at least thirty times since.1

Plaintiffs are a group of persons and organizations who, according to their affidavits, are defined by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (hereinafter “FISA”) as “U.S. persons.”2 They conducted regular international telephone and internet communications for various uncontestedly legitimate reasons including journalism, the practice of law, and scholarship. Many of their communications are and have been with persons in the Middle East. Each Plaintiff has alleged a “well founded belief” that he, she, or it, has been subjected to Defendants’ interceptions, and that the TSP not only injures them specifically and directly, but that the TSP substantially chills and impairs their constitutionally protected communications. Persons abroad who before the program spoke with them by telephone or internet will no longer do so.

Plaintiffs have alleged that the TSP violates their free speech and associational rights, as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution; their privacy rights, as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution; the principle of the Separation of Powers because the TSP has been authorized by the President in excess of his Executive Power under Article II of the United States Constitution, and that it specifically violates the statutory limitations placed upon such interceptions by the Congress in FISA because it is conducted without observation of any of the procedures required by law, either statutory or Constitutional.

Before the Court now are several motions filed by both sides. Plaintiffs have requested a permanent injunction, alleging that they sustain irreparable damage because of the continued existence of the TSP. Plaintiffs also request a Partial Summary Judgment holding that the TSP violates the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”); the Separation of Powers doctrine; the First and Fourth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and the statutory law. Defendants have moved to dismiss this lawsuit, or in the alternative for Summary Judgment, on the basis of the state secrets evidentiary privilege and Plaintiffs’ lack of standing.

1. Available at Press Conference of the President (VIDEO) 12/19/05
2. Pub. L. 95-511, Title I, 92 Stat 1976 (Oct. 25, 1978), codified as amended at 50 U.S.C. §§ 1801 et seq.

Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, 08/17/2006, (06-10204)AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION et al., v. NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY / CENTRAL et al.Memorandum and Order, FULL TEXT in PDF format

Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, 08/17/2006, (06-10204) AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION et al. v. NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY / CENTRAL et al.Judgment and Order for Permanent Injunction, FULL TEXT in PDF format

RELATED: Keywords, Alberto R. Gonzales, Thursday, August 10, 2006 Chertoff, Gonzales, United Kingdom, liquid explosives (VIDEO), Friday, June 23, 2006 Seven Florida Men Charged with Conspiring to Support al Qaeda (VIDEO), Thursday, April 27, 2006 Operation Falcon II (VIDEO), Thursday, January 26, 2006 Gonzales to Lead U.S. Delegation to Honduras Inauguration, Wednesday, January 04, 2006 Jack Abramoff Press Release and VIDEO, Wednesday, November 23, 2005 Attorney General Gonzales on Jose Padilla (VIDEO), Wednesday, July 06, 2005 ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES TRAVELS TO BAGHDAD, Sunday, April 24, 2005 DRAM CONSPIRACY, Monday, April 18, 2005 Operation FALCON, Friday, March 11, 2005 ALBERTO R. GONZALES ON THE AL-MOAYAD AND ZAYED CONVICTIONS, Friday, February 25, 2005 Alberto R. Gonzales priorities of Justice, Friday, February 04, 2005 Confirmation Alberto R. Gonzales Attorney General, Wednesday, January 05, 2005 Judiciary Committee Alberto R. Gonzales, Wednesday, November 10, 2004 The Honorable Alberto R. Gonzales,