The same can/should be said for "unpublished opinions"[1] of any court. I do not understand how in a common law system a judge can make a ruling and say "I don't want to be held accountable for this rash decision I just filed. Let's mark it unpublished and make sure it never has to undergo much scrutiny."

[1] This is a different unpublished than FISC decisions. Instead of "unpublished" read as "non-precedential opinions." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-publication_of_legal_opinio...

I agree with you dfc. Not publishing opinions in this day and age is nuts. Everything should be published.

So no secret targets at all, then.

The court can publish opinions and cases without revealing identities or identifying details.

This would have caught the insane redefinition of "relevant" that allows for receiving all call records for everyone, for example.