Reaction to a surprise court ruling that struck down a controversial U.S. surveillance program was sharply divided Thursday, with the White House saying it “couldn't disagree more” with the decision. The case was brought on behalf of a range of individuals, who claimed the National Security Agency (NSA) program violated their right to privacy. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) fought the case, and praised U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor's decision. “At its core, today's ruling addresses the abuse of presidential power and reaffirms the system of checks and balances that's necessary to our democracy,” said ACLU executive director Anthony Romero. He called the opinion “another nail in the coffin in the Bush administration's legal strategy in the war on terror.” That legal strategy has entailed seeking broad executive powers, including the right to authorize the NSA program, which allowed the agency to monitor the international phone calls and emails of American citizens without court approval. At the White House, press secretary Tony Snow defended the program, repeating administration assertions that it is both narrow and necessary. “United States intelligence officials have confirmed that the program has helped stop terrorist attacks and saved American lives,” he said. “The program is carefully administered.” Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the administration continues to “believe very strongly that the program is lawful.” At a press conference, he added: “We have confidence in the lawfulness of this program. This is an important program … we are going to do everything that we can do in the courts.” The Justice Department also issued a statement on the ruling, defending its constitutionality and announcing the government's decision to appeal the verdict. “Because the Terrorist Surveillance Program is an essential tool for the intelligence community … the Department of Justice has appealed the District Court's order,” the statement said. The decision granted only part of the ACLU's request, ruling that a similar injunction against a data mining program would not be issued. The ruling said the legality of the surveillance program could be evaluated on the basis of existing public information, but that a similar evaluation of the data mining program would entail revealing secret information that could jeopardize national security. The decision also allows the surveillance program to continue until appeals on the issue are resolved.
