I understand your opinion on this matter but I have a different view on things:
If terrorists are able to destroy our basic fundamental human rights then we are weak as a nation.
Terrorists will come and go but our rights should stay and if needed, expand.

It is a honey pot, because either I defend that list of nasty things my government does (I don't agree with), in which case I have to advocate a weak and immoral position in order to support my country, or I take your view and demand some international tribunal come in and wreck my fucking nation like they've done with the majority of Europe, all for the supposed defense of 'human rights' which are in fact nothing more than legislated social privileges easily revoked. Either way, I lose. That's why it's a honey pot. To have to take either a hypocritical position or an immoral position is not in my interest.

I never demanded anything from my government, because they had already stole it from me before I had a voice to ask.

Mass surveillance doesn't means it should conflict with fundamental rights.

Your source is the declaration of human rights. Reading it, at least two of your objections (4 and 12) are not true, at least not without further argument. 4 because being imprisoned is neither slavery nor holding in servitude, unless one can argue otherwise, 12 because observing is not necessarily interfering.
For the rest of them, again, an argument is needed, not just a sentence.
Is imprisoning a claustrophobic in a 3'x3' cell considered torture or cruel punishment?
Does having the right to something means said something must also be provided to one? The very Miranda rights say you have the right to an attorney, then add that if you cannot afford one, one will be provided to you. That means that without the addition, you do have the right to an attorney, but if you can't afford one, tough luck.

That does not mean I condone ignoring the Human Rights, but be aware that the letter of the law (or the declaration in this case) and the spirit of the law may not always be the same. One could adhere to the letter while ignoring the spirit.

Privacy is a fundamental right.
Although I agree to some extend to TEMPORARILY have mass surveillance in times of terror, I do not want to keep it like they did in America.

Privacy is not a fundamental right. The right is to not have your privacy arbitrarily interfered with. So if it's not arbitrarily or it's not interfered with, your right is not violated.

Argument 4: In America prisoners are sometimes forced to work for no pay.
Here is a good explanations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlCXjcQgNJg

On the GITMO argument, if you do some research you quickly learn of the cruel things prisoners where subject to.
Waterboarding, sleep deprivation, starvation, punching and kicking, ...
Some even died without getting any trial.

Also having right to have access to a lawyer means you should get one for free.
Here is some more info that I found about this matter:
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Police_arrest_ENG.pdf
Oh okay, my mistake.

Yes. It's called Community Service. In countries with mandatory military service, conscientious objectors can opt for community service instead. Not the same as either slavery or indebted servitude.
And considering there are jobs where your only obligation is to be present at a specific point for a specific amount of time, all prisoners could be considered to work for no pay, in all countries.
Additional point about this part: Do the prisoners already know how to do said work, or are they given training for it? So could one argue that it's not indebted servitude but an unpaid internship instead? Or if they already know how to do it, could they be teaching it to others?

No. It does not. It means that if you ask for a lawyer and one agrees to work with you, they cannot be prevented from working with you. If no one wants to work with you, they cannot force one to do so. Not unless there is an additional point allowing them to force one to work with you.
A good example of this is article 13, point 2. You have the right to leave any country. If you don't have the means to leave said country, the means may or may not be provided to you.

Does anyone talk about gaming in this forum any more?

In most western countries authorities require court order in order to perform surveilance on their OWN citizens. Heck, even accessing persons personal records without getting permission first can and often will get you sacked (hospital staff can only access your medical reports if you give persmission or if you not in condition to and they are needed for your threatment. Police can't access your records unless you are suspected of something or if have you have commited a crime they need to update the records etc.).

What's in it for you? What if US folks are fine with things how they are, and don't want to pay more taxes in order to give more benefits to others? Should they change that just to please you?

(I am pretty sure US has social security of some sort, even if it may be different from what you have in Belgium.)

Yeah we do. I have a lot of issues with the States and a case can be made that in some aspects human rights are lacking, but the OP is talking out of his ass.

For example, Eduction is free in America.

And Mass Surveillance? I got news, 90% is by choice. Those cameras all over the place are put there by private business and home owners. The cameras on stop lights, voted on and approved by the voters. All the "intrusive" videos you see on YouTube, made by assholes and their I-Phones. :P

The OP seriously needs to do some fucking homework before he starts in with a bullshit thread like this.

I was also thinking that maybe in US lots of the "aid for poor" may actually be provided by private organizations which work with donations from mega-rich people like Bill Gates, or Humble Bundle, etc. More so than in European countries. That may also lessen the need for a government-controlled social security in the US.

Overall, I have a bit of an issue with these comparisons where e.g. small single countries (like Belgium or Finland) are compared to a gigantic federal state like USA. The scope is so different, providing social security to 5-6 million people in Finland, or 320 million in the USA.

A better comparison (for scope) would be to compare the whole of EU to USA. I don't recall getting any benefits from the European Commission straight to my bank account, and the whole idea of an EU-wide social security (where e.g. my tax money would go to some unemployed Portuguese and vice versa, just taking a distant EU country as an example, nothing against the Portuguese...) appalls me.

I mean, aren't the civil rights activists, anarchists etc. always talking about the virtues of "near democracy" (lähidemokratia), ie. people are more content when decisions are made close to them, not some distant place like Brussels by some faceless bureacrats? Individuals feel they are more in power with near democracy.

That's also the reason I feel more content with my tax money being used to an unemployed Finn, than an unemployed Portuguese. I am pretty sure the Portuguese feel similarly for the usage of their tax money.