I agree - the article does a horrible job of proving this case, it merely mentions a mysterious 'panel' and an 'independant' commission's study. The problem is

I agree - the article does a horrible job of proving this case, it merely mentions a mysterious 'panel' and an 'independant' commission's study. The problem is that this article, and the resopnses to it, are focusing on the wrong thing: The efficacy of violating ones consitiutional rights should have no bearing on wether or not that violation is legal.