Where is this state located? What is its capital? What are its major cities? Who is the head of this state? Seems to me that you’re trying to justify your position by perverting the word “state” out of all rational and common usage.
How, exactly, does following the Constitution “doom us to defeat?” And what does “defeat” mean in the context of the War on Terror? Forcible conversion of the US population to Islam? Do you actually think that is a likely (to say nothing of possible) outcome here?
If the Constitution “dooms us to defeat”, well, then why even bother fighting? The Constitution is the very basis of what we stand for, and if we chuck that, we might as well give up and let the terrorists win. Because there’s nothing left to fight for.
No, the Constitution doesn’t mention any right to privacy. But it’s pretty clear on warrantless searchs; “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” - it’s the Fourth Amendment, look it up.
We have a procedure for authorizing wiretaps. The government has to request a warrant from a special court that was set up just for that purpose. It’s not a public court and its records are not revealed, so there’s no national security threat. The government can even start a wiretap and then request a retroactive warrant within three days. And with over 18000 requests for warrants having been made, only seven have ever been denied.
So can you explain exactly, or even approximately, why the Bush administration felt it couldn’t work within a set of “restrictions” this loose? Can you possibly describe for the rest of us anything that even remotely resembles a realistic threat that couldn’t have been investigated under those rules?
Ever watch South Park? Did you see the episode where Jim and Ned take the boys hunting? They tell them they’re going to hunt bears which is illegal. But there’s an exception - you’re allowed to shoot any animal in self-defense if it’s attacking you. So they all run around the woods, shooting every animal they see, and every time they yell out “it’s coming right at me!” before they pull the trigger.
And that’s what we’ve got here. The government has convinced people like you that it’s okay to suspend the law for people because they’re “suspected terrorists”. And who defines who’s a “suspected terrorist”? The government. So now we have a government that can arrest anybody, including you or me, and lock them up indefinitely without any chance for a hearing or even to hear what the evidence is against us.
You remember Edward Allen? He was the person who wasn’t allowed to board a plane because his name was on a list of people who are being watched as possible terrorists. It’s possible the government might have been mistaken - Edward Allen is only four years old. This particular case got a lot of publicity because of Allen’s age. But many other cases like this occur, where people are suddenly told for no apparent reason that they’re on a list (or worse yet, they’re on a list and they’re not being told).
Suppose some real terrorist had the same name as you. Would you be okay with being told you can’t travel on a plane or a bus? Would you mind being questioned by the police? Would you mind if you were fired from your job as a security risk? Would you be willing to be arrested? Would you accept being held for months without a trial or a chance to see a lwayer or contact your family? Would you be willing to be tortured for information about things you know nothing about? Would you be willing to have your family members get the same treatment because you were uncooperative? Would any of that be an acceptable price for you to pay if it made the rest of us feel safer?