Passed in the wake of the infamous Church hearings

(what is infamous about them?)

on the CIA, FISA is an artifact of post-Vietnam and post-Watergate hostility to executive power.

(the WSJ dismisses FISA without any justification – it’s an artifact, it’s hostile – without saying why the act is wrong or unnecessary)

But even as Jimmy Carter signed it for political reasons,

(another ad hominem: the act can’t be right, because Carter signed it for political reasons – how would they know? – did they criticize the Medicare entitlement program because Bush “signed it for political reasons?”)

his own Attorney General declared that it didn’t supercede executive powers under Article I of the Constitution. Every President since has agreed with that view, and no court has contradicted it.

(no court contradicted it because it has not been adjudicated — no court confirmed it, either)

As federal judge and former Deputy Attorney General Laurence Silberman explained in his 1978 testimony on FISA, the President is accountable to the voters if he abuses surveillance power. Fear of exposure or political damage are powerful disincentives to going too far.

(so is violation of the law. So there should be no restraints on executive power because public disapproval is all the deterrent we need?)

But judges, who are not politically accountable, have no similar incentives to strike the right balance between intelligence needs and civilian privacy. This is one reason the Founders gave the judiciary no such plenary powers.

(no, but they did give them the authority to issue warrants – also, their job is not to strike any balance, it is to determine probably cause)

Far from being some rogue operation, the Bush Administration has taken enormous pains to make sure the NSA wiretaps are both legal and limited.

(apparently the “enormous pains” didn’t include getting the warrants which were required by law – how does the Journal get away with blithely saying they were legal when the adminstration’s actions violated the law? – and of course they were limited, because they could not be infinite)

The program is monitored by lawyers, reauthorized every 45 days by the President

(and foxes are good guards of hen-houses)

and has been discussed with both Congress

(a very limited number of Congressmen, some of whom objected)

and the FISA court itself.

(that’s why the FISA judge said he knew nothing of the warrantless wiretaps and resigned?)

The Administration even decided against warrantless wiretaps on al Qaeda suspects communicating entirely within the U.S., though we’d argue that that too would be both constitutional and prudent.

(why didn’t they get the warrants? the FBI wiretaps people all of the time, but they get warrants first)

Any attempt to expand FISA would be the largest assault on Presidential power since the 1970s.

(and the circumvention of FISA is a direct assault on the powers the Constitution specifically granted to Congress to determine the rules for the army and navy)

Congress has every right to scrutinize the NSA program and cut off funds if it wants to. But it shouldn’t take the politically easy route of passing the buck to the judiciary

(it’s not passing the buck – the judiciary is the body of government which is charged with issuing warrants)

and further limiting the President’s ability to defend America.

(if FISA truly limits the President’s ability to defend America, then Congress would change it in a heartbeat)

Far from expanding FISA, Congress could best serve the country by abolishing it.

(Based on the logic above? I don’t think so).

Via the WaPo:
Responding to congressional pressure from both parties, the White House agreed yesterday to give lawmakers more information about its domestic surveillance program, although the briefings remain highly classified and limited in scope.
…