An excellent article which clarifies the vacating of the government’s warrantless eavesdropping program. Although the mainstream media seem to imply the court ruled on the legality of the administration's eavesdropping, turns out the ruling concerned only the plaintiffs’ legal right to sue. So even though the administration continues its extraordinary efforts to obstruct judicial review, the legality of its eavesdropping program is still in question.

As a non-lawyer, I can't really argue about the law with a lawyer, so instead here's a pure hominem attack. It's important to remember, whenever reading anything by Glenn Greenwald, that Glenn Greenwald is a highly problematic figure to be lauded on a site like NewsTrust. He misrepresents the opposing viewpoint rather than confront it head-on, in fact that seems to be his main argument method. He used to go around making up fake identities and posting laudatory comments about himself or taking his own side in blog comments section arguments. Why, when these facts are well known, is Glenn Greenwald taken seriously? I can't do it.

Extremely fair. A good demonstration of how the courts must rule in ways that force legislative clarity or change. He urges that change by demonstrating the absurdity--a catch 22--for calling into account illegal wiretapping by the president. If you can't hold him accountable because the evidence is done in secret then something needs to be changed. Great journalism.

Good article which both informs and gives insight into the workings of the court and the administration which is not found in the mainstream media.

A partisan hatchet job - particularly unfair to John Yoo.