The FISA Court has apparently granted over 99% of the warrants which were requested — there is certainly probable cause — what’s to stop them?

1) The Journal typically combs over the bald spots in its arguments with ad hominem diversions. For example, when you start a sentence with “the media, mouthing phrases like ‘Article II authority,’ “ you have dismissed the opposing arguments without bothering to say why they are purportedly wrong. The implication is that the media don’t know what they are talking about because they are only mouthing phrases. The Journal never says why Article II is not relevant – there is no substance to their argument besides insult.

2) The statement that the media “are presenting the issues as if politics have nothing to do with what is driving the subject matter” is similarly incorrect, for several reasons:
a. Of course politics plays a role in the subject matter. Politics plays a role in health care, Social Security, defense appropriations, and everything else that the government does. Moreover, the politics of the situation have been discussed exhaustively in the media. So what exactly is their point?
b. The clear implication is that politics is the primary driving force of media coverage. Well, no. The President is in apparent violation of the law, the wiretap program is larger than anybody knew, and there are lawsuits and committee hearings galore. These are real, substantive news stories which should be written about, regardless of whether or not there are political elements to the story. There were political elements in Ken Starr’s investigation – does the Journal suggest that this story shouldn’t have been covered either? Or that it is somehow less newsworthy because politics were involved?
c. The other implication is that this is a partisan issue with Democrats on one side and Republicans on the other. Given the number of Republicans who have expressed serious concerns about the NSA program, the implication is clearly false.

3) The rest of the excerpt also makes no sense. It mentions that some of the 9/11 hijackers made or received international calls, but doesn’t say what stopped the NSA from eavesdropping on the calls. (Certainly not FISA – they could have listened all they wanted, as any FISA judge would certainly have issued a warrant). It states that the NSA didn’t wiretap the San Diego hijackers because the NSA feared “it would be accused of domestic spying.” Again, any judge would have issued a warrant. (If the issue is limitations on what the NSA can do domestically: these aren’t issues for the FBI.)