Bipartisan agreement–against privacy rights - by Ned Resnikoff,

2:55 pm on 12/28/2012
.....have been (un)willing to protect the privacy of Americans in their digital papers, all eyes should now turn to the Courts.
Bipartisanship isn’t dead after all. On Friday, in a remarkable display of across-the-aisle cooperation, the Senate voted 73-23 to approve a five-year renewal of the 2008 FISA Amendments Act. The legislation now awaits President Barack Obama’s signature—which it will almost certainly receive.

George W. Bush would be proud. He’s the president who originally signed the law back in 2008, as a way to retroactively legitimize his administration’s practice of spying on American citizens without a warrant. The bill’s passage in 2008 was the climax to a three-year-long scandal kicked off in 2005, when The New York Times first reported that the Bush-era National Security Agency was keeping tabs on American citizens “without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying.” There’s no telling how many people the NSA spied on or why, but in 2006 one anonymous whistleblower said that journalists for mainstream publications were among the targets......

....This Thursday, the lame duck Senate debated renewing the law. Senators Leahy (D-Vt.), Wyden (D-Ore.), Merkley (D-Ore.) and Paul (R-Ky.) all proposed amendments that would strengthen privacy protections and soften the bill’s radical expansion of the security state’s surveillance powers. But Senate Intelligence Committee chair Diane Feinstein, a California Democrat, joined her Republican colleague Saxby Chambliss in vigorously opposing the amendments.

“There is a view of some that this country no longer needs to fear attacks—I don’t share that view,” said Feinstein, apparently channeling the spirit of Dick Cheney.

It will be interesting to see if she still holds that view when the bill comes up for renewal in another five years … perhaps under a Republican president.

(I can see why Obama has steadfastly supported the forfeiture of all privacy, disclosure, and accountability of the Executive branch illegal domestic spying on all American residents, Obama voted for this after he won the democratic party nomination in 2008, and will sign the bill extending this suspension of guaranteed, 4th amendment protections unrestrained and unaccountable against government information gathering of U.S. residents suspected of no criminal activity. However, why is Saxby Chambliss breaking his oath of office, to "preserve and to protect the Constitution of the United States"? Why does Saxby want to help extend total secrecy and unaccountability in this illegal information harvesting for four more years, under Obama?

It seems clear Senator Saxby Chambliss does not respresent the interests of the people of his state or take his oath of office as a solemn, binding duty. Saxby represents the unaccountable Surveillance State, it is a money making, emerging industry. Aside from defending the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights, what rights is Saxby committed to "preserving and protecting"? Clearly he
is leading the charge against any fourth amendment protection against government depriving of all of us of "the right to be secure in our papers!"

If our only remaining "guaranteed right" is gun ownership, what is the point of keeping up a false impression that the purpose of an "armed citizenry" is to protect against the government taking away the guaranteed protections defined in the other nine of the Bill of Rights.)