Let's look at them: 1.) Gitmo/holding prisoners without trial: Ok, if a foreign fighter is caught on US soil conducting war against the US (like, say the Brits in the War of 1812), let alone caught on foreign soil, they don't get US legal rights. They're POWs. According to the Geneva Conventions, if those foreign fighters are not displaying the proper identification (ie- those pretty little flags you see on every country's military uniforms), they don't get international POW rights. This isn't some legal right that guerrillas have: it's a legal right some ill-informed people THOUGHT they had, but never had. 2.) Warrantless US-to-international wiretaps: I've gone over this before, but let's do it again. Under the old rules, when a wiretap was literally a physical wire tap, if the phone on foreign soil was tapped and a phone call was made from or to a US number from that phone, the wiretap was legal. No warrant was required for a wiretap off US soil, and it's not like the CIA needed to fly back to the US and get a judge to sign a sheet of paper for that wiretap just in case someone called or was called from the US. With modern technology, a dork in an air-conditioned office in Langley presses a button and the phone is tapped. Is the wiretap located in the foreign country, or is it located in the US? Is the phone number a US-numbered cellphone located on foreign soil? Does that mean someone with a US-numbered cellphone that is physically on foreign soil can call a US-numbered cellphone that is physically on foreign soil and they don't need to worry about the CIA listening in? The rules are pretty simple: if the CIA has reason to believe a US-numbered cell is on foreign soil, they can listen to it without a warrant. If a foreign-numbered phone calls into or is called from a US number, it can be listened to without a warrant because you can legitimately say the call is being tapped on the "foreign" end of that call. All reasonable updates in the face of modern technology. Rights haven't been taken away: they're legal rights some ill-informed people THOUGHT they had, but never had. 3.) Warrantless searches: There have always been warrantless searches. Has the frequency gone up? Yes. But it would be kind of shocking if we were in the kind of war we're in and searches of ALL kinds didn't go up. Warranted searches are up, legal warrantless searches have gone up as well. The exceptions to the rules have always been on the books. Just because the frequencies of the situations that fall into those exceptions have increased doesn't mean rights are being taken away. Rights haven't been taken away: they're legal rights some ill-informed people THOUGHT they had, but never had. Have there been excesses? Sure. Have there been overzealous FBI/CIA/NSA agents? Absolutely. And again, that isn't anything new. Excesses happened before 9/11, too. Like it or not, it happens. When you're working the FBI/CIA/NSA harder, more mistakes are going to be made. That's just grown-up reality. Unless you're saying the FBI/CIA/NSA should back off and do LESS work, an increase in those excesses are a fact of life. Nobody's saying we should be happy with those mistakes, but what exactly was anyone expecting? When they've been discovered, they've been dealt with. Even in the case of that douchebag Muslim lawyer (fuck- if the FBI WEREN'T wiretapping a guy who VOLUNTEERED to defend 9/11 hijackers I'd want them fired). If you're going to bitch about rights being taken away, you better be sure you had those rights in the first place. The only right you've had taken away is the right to believe in the falsehood that you had those particular rights, and the reality is that you probably never thought it out in the first place.