1st paragraph: Are there instances of this happening? If so what are some?
Multiple, in fact. The
wikipedia article lists a few of the cases that ended up in Court. The numbers cited in the wikipedia are startling: In 2003 they issued 39,346 requests, in 2004 another 56,507 requests and in 2005 another 47,221. I don't have easy access to newer statistics, but this is a very real and legitimate concern, even with recent decisions striking down the "gag order" portion of the law in question.
2nd paragraph: that's outside the uSA and that bastard n the WH signed it into law. However I suspect any sitting PoTUS would have done it too.
On the matter of where we detain people, does it matter if it's outside the United States or inside? Either we stand for freedom and the rule of law, or we don't. Whether it's in Quantico or Guantanamo Bay the U.S. Government is the entity exercising control and jurisdiction and hardly anyone would argue differently. Let me make one thing very clear: I'm not necessarily opposed to Guantanamo Bay, nor do I think that it is legally or morally necessary to provide detainees access to U.S. courts. But I believe that anyone under the control and jurisdiction of the U.S. Government is protected by the Constitution (to varying degrees) and that the system that what we have in place now is a travesty.
3rd. I don't like it either. Of the "rights" taken away I the last 10 years I do have a problem with those 2 the most and have spoken out against many times here and othe places. Idiot immediately buy into the excuse of it being a different world with technology and therefore time is an issue.
But the problem is that, having spoken out against them, you then reduce everything to TSA and belts. This is the kind of Orwellian stuff that we all - regardless of party affiliation - ought to be outraged about. We ought to be contacting our Senators and Represenatives on a daily basis, until they
finally listen to us and stop this insane descent into some kind of crazy police state.
4th para, never heard of that. But do go on. Finally, some one who can actually back up an argument. But I knew that all along about you avxo 
You may want to read into the travesty that was the NSA warrantless surveillance case at AT&T; the legal case is Hepting v. U.S.. When the Government tried to invoke the State Secrets privilege, the Court denied that request but the Government appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Before the 9th could rule, legislation was introduced and passed that granted AT&T (and others)
retroactive immunity for past violations, and the Court remanded the case to the lower court. The government then moved to dismiss based on provisions found in the new law. Their motion was, of course, successful.
The privilege was successfully asserted in a case brought by El-Masri against the CIA. El-Masri, under a process known as "extraordinary rendition" was taken by the CIA from Skopje to Afghanistan where he alleged he was tortured. His name was was identical to that of someone on a watch list. The suit was dismissed upon the Government's assertion that the case would "present a grave risk of injury to national security." The particular danger it would pose was never specified.
The privilege was, again, successfully asserted in Arar v. Ashcroft. Apparently, requiring the Government to explain why Mr. Arar was sent by the Government to Syria instead of Canada would present a grave risk to our national security.
It's easy to dismiss all this stuff and argue that none of this happened to Americans and we're all fine and dandy and perfectly free. But the facts tell a different story. This country was founded - and flourished - on some core ideas, ideas so fundamental that to abandon them means to abandon our "soul".
