Repeatedly in recent years, the White House has convinced lawmakers that preventing terrorist attacks is more important than legal rights and clear oversight. That was the case when Congress hastily passed the Protect America Act, which broadened the government’s authority to eavesdrop on electronic communications. Rather than make this mistake again, lawmakers should insist the wiretapping program remain under full judicial review and that there is no blanket authority to intercept calls and e-mails.

The White House wants the Protect America Act extended indefinitely. The act, passed in the final days before the congressional summer recess, allows intelligence agencies to monitor the e-mails and phone conversations of all foreign intelligence targets, including communications with individuals in the United States and communications that pass through equipment in the United States.

Soon after it was passed, computer scientists warned that the act allowed the interception of purely domestic communications without a warrant. Assurances from the agencies that such information would be “blacked out” does little to quell fear that the privacy and security of American communications could be compromised.

The act also limited the role of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court in ruling on eavesdropping requests.

Because of privacy and other concerns, lawmakers made the act effective for only six months, setting up a repeat confrontation.

Language under consideration would allow intelligence agencies to obtain “basket” warrants from the FISA court, rather than individual warrants for each targeted individual. These warrants would last for a year. The White House says this is necessary because obtaining individual warrants it too cumbersome. However, obtaining FISA court approval does not appear to be difficult. The court has rejected, in part, only one application since 2005.

Rather than broaden the Protect American Act, Congress should scale it back, and the House should refuse the blanket immunity portion of the bill agreed to in a Senate committee. Unless the administration can demonstrate that the FISA court posed a real hurdle to terrorism investigations, yearlong blanket warrants do not appear necessary.

The White House also has pushed to give the Justice Department oversight of the program. Given the department’s recent history of political decisions and lack of clarity over its involvement in eavesdropping, this is the wrong place for such a controversial program. The FISA court has proven it can handle the task and should retain its full authority.

Although lawmakers are rightly worried that they’ll be blamed for any terrorist act, the system set up before the Protect America Act largely worked. Lawmakers should not be afraid to return to it.