Sen. Reid needs to make it clear that a vote on this issue is entirely contingent upon the Administration complying with this court order and he needs not to schedule a vote on any FISA bill until the Judge approves the administration's compliance.

With no new FISA bill, it's my understanding that the law will revert back to what it was prior to the last cave in by the Democrats (Rockefeller et al).

Below, is a transcription of a letter I received from my Senator relative to FISA. I intend to keep writing her and insisting that she take the responsibility of her oath of office very seriously, particularly on this issue. She cannot afford to lose any votes in this state and if she continues to sell our constitutional protections down the river, that's precisely what she will accomplish.

I would hope that as many readers as possible contact their Senators (especially those who wish to be President) and also Sen. Reid and let them know how you feel about this issue. It might not do any good, but it will damned sure not do any harm.

----------------------------------------------------

Dear (redacted):

Thank you for contacting me to express your concern about the Protect America Act. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue and I apologize for the delay in my response.

I appreciate your point regarding the legislation’s impact upon the privacy rights of Americans. While I supported the bill, I did so with several reservations--many of which you mentioned in your correspondence to my office. I ultimately supported the bill because, at the time, our national intelligence agencies indicated that there was an increase in terrorist communication and that they lacked the appropriate tools to ascertain the intelligence value of the communications. At the same time, I was pleased that the legislation had a six month sunset so that the Congress would have an opportunity to craft a new law that provides a better balance between protecting our constitutional rights and collecting intelligence.

Please be sure that I understand the importance of preserving our nation’s fundamental notions of due process, fairness, and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. In the weeks ahead, I intend to work with my Senate colleagues to ensure that we can craft a balanced bill that enables our intelligence community to collect necessary information while protecting the civil liberties of all Americans.

I appreciate the opportunity to hear from you about this important matter, and I hope you will continue to contact me on issues of mutual concern. Please feel free to also visit my website at http://www.senate.gov/~landrieu for more information on legislative affairs.

With warmest regards, I am

Sincerely,

Mary L. Landrieu

United States Senator

-----------------------------------------------------

It seems to me that by making certain that no one is allowed to violate the law with impunity, whether it be an elected official such as the President, or a corporation which complies with an illegal and constitutionaly violative request from the government, would be a precursor to protecting our civil liberties. That point will be made clear in my next letter to Sen. Landrieu and also in my letter to Sen. Reid.

if the Trib had the will to do its own story on this issue rather than just using Time's and then piecemealing corrections.

Still, it's a step in the right direction.

Have you ever read "Confederacy of Dunces"?

If not, you should. It will either give you gas or you'll acquire a sense of humor.

The latter will be good for your mental well being and the former will allow you to treat us to more of your usual wheeze.

Guys like you make Shooter look good.

Is it possible that the Trib published it's initial exerpt of the Klein story for the express purpose of being able to publish a "correction" the next day?

Do news organizations normally play these kinds of games with one another?

Would The Tribune want to stick it to Time for some reason?

Yes, I actually have read your postings here.

How else would I know they're nothing but wheeze?

"1 - possible obstruction of Justice: Donna Hanover wouldn't get the proof she might be entitled to get by subpoenaing police department records, if she needed to prove the adultery in her divorce case."

Shhhhhhhh.

Maybe, if Rudy gets elected as President, we can immediately, upon his innauguration, tip-off some third-rate scandal-sheet that he obstructed justice through his creative bookkeeping.

Then, we can get a Special Prosecutor to handle the Ex-Mrs. G's complaint to the tune of 70 or 80 million dollars of taxpayer money and, finally after 7 years, get a friendly US House to impeach the bastard. The Senate need not go along, however.

Once that's done, the Special Prosecutor can write a nice long report telling everyone that it was all just a mistake and that it wasn't Rudy who broke the law, it was a newly hired civil service accountant in the NYC Budgetary Authority who misplaced a decimal point or something which made it appear that there were some shenanigans going on. He can then set himself up in some cushy law firm and run around the country making speeches about how bad Rudy actually was...if only he could have proved it.

Oooops! Sorry about that, Rudy.

What's that about Ms. Nathan running for US Senate after Rudy retires?

Relax man, it's Friday. Chill out and enjoy the beautiful weather (even if it's not beautiful where you are, it's beautiful somewhere).

Ever try Yoga? Do this...

Take a couple of deep breaths and exhale slowly.

Bend over as far as you can go without bending your knees.

Stick your head between your legs and look up.

That's your brain.

Repeat as necessary.

"Glenn Greenwald

GIULIANI '08"

That does it!! I'm gonna call Mona and tell. If she doesn't spank your sorry ass, I will.

Glenn's being bad again.

Yes. He's being very, very bad.