"I direct your attention to a column by Glenn Greenwald, who dissects 'the remarkably dishonest Op-Ed in The Washington Post this morning by Mike McConnell, the Bush administration's Director of National Intelligence, in which he argues for completely unspecified "updates" and "changes" to FISA in order to expand -- yet again -- the Government's powers of eavesdropping on Americans.'

Mr. Greenwald's post is located at http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?last_story=/opinion/greenwald/2007/05/21/fisa_changes/ .

Mr. McConnell's Editorial can be read at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/20/AR2007052001058.html?hpid=opinionsbox1 .

As you know, in October of 2001, the Bush Administration requested and Congress granted, numerous changes to FISA which expanded the President's eavesdropping powers and which the administration claimed were necessary in order to bring FISA into the 21st Century by allowing surveillance of modern communication methods.

You should also know that the Senate has since proposed multiple amendments to FISA to facilitate obtaining FISA warrants which the Bush Administration opposed as being unnecessary. Mr. Greenwald notes, and I agreed entirely, that '[t]he administration is not, and never has been, interested in expanding the scope of FISA in order to enable them to obtain warrants more easily or accommodate "new technology." Their overriding goal has been, and plainly continues to be, the total elimination of meaningful oversight with regard to how the government eavesdrops on Americans.'

In his editorial, Mr. McConnell also states that 'I am encouraged that in my discussions with members of Congress, and in congressional hearings on this subject over the past year, there is recognition of the need to improve our intelligence efforts and close critical gaps created by changes in technology.'

As your constituent, I've generally been supportive of your efforts. Let me clear on this:

ANY ACTION ON BEHALF OF YOU OR ANY OTHER DEMOCRATIC REPRESENTATIVE TO EXPAND PRESIDENTIAL POWERS OF SURVEILLANCE OR LIMIT CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT UNDER FISA SHALL FACE THE FURY AND WRATH OF NOT ONLY PROGRESSIVES, BUT OF ALL AMERICANS WHO BELIEVE THAT THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY IS A PRIMARY ELEMENT OF OUR FORM OF DEMOCRACY. PROCEED DOWN THIS PATH AT YOUR PERIL."

I've plagiarized some from Glenn in the main body of this letter, but also directly attributed to him on those quotes of most importance. As it is, this is the best I can do on short notice. I strongly urge everyone to send a similar message to their representatives.

Totally devastasting (to Bush & Co.) analysis, Glenn.

Remember DARPA's Total Information Awareness (TIA) Project? It was basically a huge (and completely unconstitutional) DoD data mining effort that would collect information on EVERYONE from every conceivable source available. I remember there was a chilling flow chart on the TIA website that showed how an individual's medical records and bills could be tapped to build a profile on anyone.

But then Congress got wind of it and the DoD promised to suspend the project. Except they didn't, of course. They broke up the project into separate projects administered by different agencies. I have no doubt that at the right moment, these various databases could be combined in a single keystroke.

I can't help but believe that a similar program was being indiscriminately used as part of the NSA protocols. The fact that Ashcroft, one of the most zealous enforcement figures to hold the AG office, found the program completely over-the-line speaks volumes.

Everyone should direct their congressional representatives to Glenn's post and DEMAND an immediate investigation.

Commercial, as in "relating to commerce." I've never listened to Imus, and never will, which makes this an interesting decision by MSNBC as what he said probably would not cause any significant percentage of his audience to change the channel.

What it does signify is that MSNBC is perceiving a significant amount of collateral damage to markets outside of Imus' sphere of influence. This is encouraging as hopefully this perception will lead to less commercial sponsorship of ignorant and intolerant speech (including demeaning rap music lyrics). But let's not kid ourselves: no meaningful change will happen if the execs think there is a market and money to be made.

As to the free speech "issues," Joan is right: it only protects the government intruding on your right to speak freely. It doesn't extend to someone's perceived guarantee to lucrative media deals. I'm not privy to the details, but I would imagine that if he had signed a contract, he breached one of its provisions. Otherwise, he's toast whenever one of his clients feels he's more of a liability than an asset.