This is a fairly typical American view if you ask me. Selfishness. Self-centered-ness, call it what you want.
Perhaps this is why I find American culture so fascinating. You have a "me" culture. Everything is about the individual. Individual freedoms. Individual rights. Individual success. Individual everything.
New Zealand, by contrast, is the total opposite. Everything is about the "us". Indeed, caring too much about "me" will result in you getting cut down by society.
Neither is perfect of course.
However, I think, personally, that us kiwis are closer to the idea and the value of "freedom" that was given birth by the Ancient Greeks.
"Freedom" is not about YOU being free as an individual. It is about your SOCIETY being free. In the most fundamental sense, being "free" means not being owned. Slavery is the antithesis of freedom. When the Greeks developed their free societies, that was the invention of the concept of citizens. This was in contrast to other societies of the time such as the Persian Empire where everyone was essentially owned by whoever was above them on the chain - so the Emperor owned everyone.
From hence came the concept of a king who was "first amongst equals". Essentially that is what we have in western society, scoff all you want, but it's true.
The President of the US, or the PM of New Zealand, or of the UK, or any other western country is no more above the law than any of the rest of us.
Let's say Bush hopped in a car and went for a drive himself, and got pulled over for speeding...
That can happen because he's "first amongst equals".
What you are talking of is Anarchy. Anarchy is all about personal freedom. But "Freedom" as used, is a description of our SOCIETY. And an Anarchic society is NOT a free society.
To the Brits here... you were talking about the government's ability to carry out surveillance without a warrant on a suspected terrorist... I would assume the laws remain as they are - that being only crimes for which the warrant was given can be prosecuted using evidence gathered from the warrant.
In other words if you get a warrant to carry out surveillance on a suspected murderer, and he talks about some drug dealing, you cannot use that as evidence as the warrant was not for drug dealing...
In which case, were someone under surveillance as a suspected terrorist, evidence gathered from that warrant-less surveillance could only be used as part of a terrorism-related conviction, nothing else.
Am I correct, or not?
-Gumboot