Glenn Greenwald has a good article up on Salon about today's court decision in the matter of wiretapping sans warrant. Here are two key paragraphs…
It is important to be clear about what this decision means and what it does not mean — particularly since the White House, among others, is already depicting this ruling as some sort of epic blow to the administration's efforts to fight terrorism. This ruling does not, of course, prohibit eavesdropping on terrorists; it merely prohibits illegal eavesdropping in violation of FISA.
Thus, even under the court's order, the Bush administration is free to continue to do all the eavesdropping on terrorists it wants to do. It just has to cease doing so using its own secretive parameters, and instead do so with the oversight of the FISA court — just as all administrations have done since 1978, just as the law requires, and just as it did very recently when using surveillance with regard to the U.K. terror plot. Eavesdropping on terrorists can continue in full force. But it must comply with the law.
In reading a lot of articles that abhor today's decision, I have yet to see anyone argue that the above is not what the judge's opinion says, nor have I seen anyone argue that this is a bad thing. The arguments all seem to be mounted as if the judge ruled that the Bush must stop all wiretapping, period. Guess that's easier to rebut or something.