In [TS] Op-Ed Columnist: When Big Brother Is You, Mr. Brooks says a fictional President (as good a description of George W. Bush as I've ever heard) would have three options, which I will translate from SpinSpeak, the native tongue of Punditovia and/or respond to:

First, you can ask Congress to rewrite the FISA law to keep pace with the new technologies. This has some drawbacks. How exactly do you write a law to cope with this fast-changing information war?

With a pen?

Translated from SpinSpeak, he's asking "what procedure capable of giving the intelligence community, military and law enforcement access to needed information while preserving the privacy of law abiding citizens is even possible?" I suggest we allow the intelligence community to begin surveillance as soon as they have probable cause, with a requirement that they present said cause to a review panel within a reasonable period of time...say, oh, three days. If we're actually at war you can give them up to five times longer.

Even if you could set up a procedure to get warrant requests to a judge, how would that judge be able to tell which of the thousands of possible information nodes is worth looking into, or which belongs to a U.S. citizen? Swamped in the data-fog, the courts would just become meaningless rubber-stamps.

Translated from SpinSpeak..."Let's pretend the judge would have to personally examine every bit of data collected instead of only that which establishes justifiable cause, as it is the only way to pretend it is necessary to consider the next two options I want to present." 

Finally, it's likely that some member of Congress would leak details of the program during the legislative process, thus destroying it.

No translation needed here...and get used to this particular bit of nonsense because it appears on all three of Mr. Brooks' options.

You need to understand privacy regulations are like data encryption in that knowledge of the methods do not impact their effectiveness. As evidence, I present...the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which was thoroughly and openly discussed before passage.

Okay, back to translations. 

Your second option is to avoid Congress and set up a self-policing mechanism using the Justice Department and the N.S.A.'s inspector general.

Translated from SpinSpeak..."Ignore the seperation of powers that is the very structure of the Constitution of the United States of America."

This option, too, has drawbacks. First, it's legally dubious.

Translated from SpinSpeak..."It's illegal."

Second, it's quite possible that some intelligence bureaucrat will leak information about the programs, especially if he or she hopes to swing a presidential election against you. Third, if details do come out and Congressional leaders learn you went around them, there will be blowback that will not only destroy the program, but will also lead to more restrictions on executive power.

Two repetitions of previously-disposed-of nonsense.

Your third option is informal Congressional oversight. You could pull a few senior members of Congress into your office and you could say: "Look, given the fast-moving nature of this conflict, there is no way we can codify rules about what is permissible and impermissible. Instead we will create a social contract. I'll trust you by telling you everything we are doing to combat terror. You'll trust me enough to give me the flexibility I need to keep the country safe. If we have disagreements, we will work them out in private."

Translated from SpinSpeak..."Follow the procedures set forth in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act."

That about sums it up, I think. Now, thanks to Mr. Brooks, you can decide for yourself if Mr. Bush's decisions (if they were truly his) were necessary.