HeyBub wrote:
CC wrote:

What rights were taken away?


My right to privacy with the NSA wire tapping through AT&T and any
other
provider, Be it telephone, internet, or any other way of ease
dropping they wanted.

There is no "right to privacy" specifically listed in the
Constitution. The Supreme Court HAS found a right to privacy in the
"penumbras and emanations" of the 4th Amendment. Interestingly, this
right to privacy extends only to sexual acts in the three cases the
court has ruled on:
* Contraction,
* Abortion, and
* Deviant homosexual behavior.

And yet they seem to have this crazy notion that wiretapping needs a court
order. I guess it's not because of a "right to privacy". Maybe it's in the
part about being "secure in their persons and papers"?

And it was not just only all US - overseas. Next is their ability to
deny your rights to due process
if they "think" or want to label you as a terrorist, doesn't matter
if you are or not, just what they want
to say you are to be able to restrain you

Correct. "Due process" applies only to criminals or those charged with
criminal offenses ("In all criminal proceedings..."

The folks at Gitmo are not criminals. They have committed no crimes
and they are not being charged with crimes. As such, they are not
entitled to the benefits that criminals get: lawyers, trials,
indictments, witnesses, etc.
In a similar example, hundreds of thousands of German and Italian
POWs were incarcerated, on US soil, during WW2, many of whom were US
citizens (usually dual citizenship)! Not one got a trial, lawyer,
indictment by a grand jury, or anything else along those lines.

Uh, POWs are covered by international law, that does not permit them to be
tortured or otherwise mistreated.

Not that the folks at Gitmo are POWs - they are "unlawful enemy
combatants." And you're right: the president has the unfettered
ability, under his Article II powers and the customary rules of war,
to designate anyone, even you, as an "unlawful enemy combatant."

No, he doesn't. He tried that one and the Supreme Court slapped him down.
The statute got rewritten to specifically exclude any US citizen from the
authoriity of the "military commissions" that decide who is and is not an
"unlawful enemy combatant".

There is nothing the Congress or the courts can do about it.

And yet they did do something about it.

When
this exact question was presented, some years ago, to a court, the
judge said the only recourse was to replace the president at the next
election.

Probably the same idiot in DC who upheld the handgun ban on the basis that
the Constitution did not apply to DC because it was not a state.

Remember this: People who make war on the US are not criminals and
should not be treated as such.

When someone declares war let us know.