Giving credit where credit is due, I applaud the New York Times for publishing an article titled “Experts Fault Reasoning in Surveillance Decision.” Here’s the beginning of the article:

    Even legal experts who agreed with a federal judge’s conclusion on Thursday that a National Security Agency surveillance program is unlawful were distancing themselves from the decision’s reasoning and rhetoric yesterday. They said the opinion overlooked important precedents, failed to engage the government’s major arguments, used circular reasoning, substituted passion for analysis and did not even offer the best reasons for its own conclusions.

    Discomfort with the quality of the decision is almost universal, said Howard J. Bashman, a Pennsylvania lawyer whose Web log provides comprehensive and nonpartisan reports on legal developments. “It does appear,” Mr. Bashman said, “that folks on all sides of the spectrum, both those who support it and those who oppose it, say the decision is not strongly grounded in legal authority.”

I would love to see Glenn Greenwald, a hero of those who believe that Bush is a dictator-in-the-making, respond to the Times’ article. Shortly after the District Court’s decision was announced, Greenwald said this:

I do not yet know anything more than what is in this AP article, but if it is accurate, it is extraordinary news—extraordinarily good news—on every level.

Soon thereafter, he added:

I have read the opinion . . . It is a very strong opinion in some places, weak in others, but is rather straightforward—and sometimes eloquent—in its almost always unequivocal rejection of the Bush administration’s arguments . . .

[ . . . ] This is not the most scholarly opinion ever. It has argumentative holes in it in several important places. But it is correct in its result and it is an enormous victory for the rule of law. It took real courage for Judge Diggs Taylor to issue this Opinion and Order—it is hard to overstate how much courage it took.

Yesterday, in a post attacking a Washington Post editorial, Greenwald gave a little ground in an update that read, in part

Some of the issues before the court are debatable (standing and the First Amendment claims, and some would say the Fourth Amendment claim), but some issues are not debatable (the administration’s violation of the law with no excuse). Some parts of the Judge’s opinion are poorly reasoned even when her conclusion is right. But between Anna Diggs Taylor’s opinion-writing abilities and the fact that we have a President who is systematically violating the law becuase he thinks he can, it is not a difficult challenge to see which is the most important problem.

To give Greenwald his due, he proffers some carefully measured criticisms of the decision. However, he doesn’t say why some parts of the decision are poorly reasoned or draw attention to the almost universal discomfort of legal minds with the quality of the decision. Greenwald, unlike most others, isn’t very discomforted.

Here’s hoping he reads what the others are saying and posts a rebuttal.