I'm just not sure there are easy answers in any direction here. Should they have the program at all? If they should, did they choose the right parameters? If the parameters are right, is the oversight adequate to both preventing misuse of these undeniably broad powers and making the rest of us feel like it is still, in the end, our government? Who should make each of those decisions? Given democratic uncertainty over whether all the forgoing are within spitting distance of 'correct' (whatever that means), what is any individual actor's responsibility -- even assuming he has full knowledge of the program -- to undermine most of those decisions when he feels it's wrong? How wrong would he have to feel it was, and on what axes?
There are easy answers here: there should be no program at all. Terrorism is no legitimate threat to the US and never has been. Any time you give the government the ability to override checks and balances, they are already abusing that ability (and usually want it applied to previous behavior so they can't be prosecuted for past infractions).
I hold a less extreme position, that
(1) The laws should have a two-year sunset clause
(2) The government should have to prove the law's efficacy to the public. Fuck this 'it works but we can't tell you' bullshit.
(3) We have to understand full well that when we allows these laws they will be used fully. I don't think it takes an evil person for this to be true. I think most of us, if we were given the responsibility of protecting the public and the authority for doing so, we would use that authority. Nobody wants to be the guy that people look back on after a terrorist act and say, 'but YOU could have prevented this.' Look at all the grief the spooks are getting with this 'Marathon Bomber' kid (Tsarnaev). Apparently they were warned that he could be a threat. But they respected his rights and let him be free. And now they are being accused of being incompetent.
