Baltimore peace groups have tried to talk with representatives of the National Security Agency since 1996. (James Bamford's book BODY OF SECRETS, details the Agency's response to these requests.) In June 2006, for example, the Pledge of Resistance–Baltimore sent a letter to the NSA director, Lt. Gen. Keith Alexander, seeking a meeting.

A great concern is the NSA’s involvement in the illegal war and occupation of Iraq. Since Gen. Alexander failed to respond to the letter, some twenty five peace activists went to Fort Meade, Maryland on July 8, 2006 in an attempt to seek a meeting with NSA officials to discuss the illegal activities perpetrated by the government agency. In response, NSA security blocked a public road to prevent the activists from approaching an NSA checkpoint and issued citations to thirteen of them, charging them with “Entering into military facility for purposes prohibited by law.”

Those charged include these Baltimore activists: Maria Allwine, Ellen Barfield, Susan Crane, Jay Gillen, Max Obuszewski and Ed Boyd, the former Green Party candidate for governor of Maryland. Others charged were Jean Athey, Montgomery County, MD, Eden Coughlin, Brooklyn, NY, Pat Elder, Bethesda, MD, Ed Kinane, Syracuse, Eve Tetaz, Washington, D.C., and Father Louis Vitale, Nevada. They were arraigned in U.S. District Court in Baltimore and are scheduled for trial before Magistrate Judge Susan Gauvey on February 12.

The defendants have been working with three attorneys to prepare for trial. Several motions have been filed, including one calling for dismissal and two requests to compel discovery. In dialogue with the military prosecutor, the defendants were informed they could only see the discovery material if they signed Federal Protective Orders. The government is claiming that this “classified” information cannot be seen by others such as witnesses or members of the media.

The defendants are refusing to sign any protective orders and will argue vociferously that by law the government, meaning the National Security Agency, must release the material to the defense. Besides the arguments over discovery, the defendants will urge Judge Gauvey to dismiss the case because of various problems with the charge. These arguments will be made at a motions hearing where the defendants will challenge any government claim that discovery material must be protected from “prying eyes.”

The unreasonable behavior of the National Security Agency is not unusual. In a trial of two NSA protesters in August 2004, Judge Gauvey ordered an NSA security official to turn over documents to the defense. The protesters now had information, a surveillance log and an action plan, which confirmed what they always knew. The NSA and the Maryland Joint Terrorism Task Force were indeed doing surveillance of Baltimore-area pacifist groups.

Federal Protective Orders have been used in many high-profile cases, where the government argues “national security.” For example, this became an issue in the John Walker Lindh case. Why is this an issue in a case where nonviolent peace activists tried to meet with government officials, but were rebuffed, cited and now find themselves in federal court? If this case is not dismissed, the thirteen peace activists will use the trial to challenge the illegal activities of the National Security Agency, including its disregard for the First Amendment.