The Wiretaps. What was the judge so mad about?

· long story short

In the Reuters report on the ruling against warrantless wiretapping, warrants are not mentioned until the eighth paragraph.
Court rules secret wiretaps violate rights, Reuters, 8/17/06
Absent the issue of warrants, what was the judge so mad about? She is quoted: The wiretaps “violated…civil rights,” “freedom of speech, protection against unreasonable searches, and a constitutional check on the power of the presidency.”
But why? How? Maybe because the wiretaps were “secret” (the headline). Or maybe just because they were wiretaps.
Absent the issue of warrants. The ignorance is depressing. I’m afraid this is pretty much the message that many, many American are going to get.