The big thing about Israel is that they allow for administrative detention without trial. It's really hard to get worked up about surveillance when they don't even have to file charges to keep you in jail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#H...
We should remember what Bush asked the 4th Circuit to do when Padilla petitioned to the Supreme Court for the second time.... Fortunately the court would have none of these games.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Act_2006#Extending_th...
Laws written originally to thwart the IRA were used to detain suspects and in many cases innocent people, who happened to be Irish, where convicted after confessions were cohered out of them. Can you imagine being jailed for 90 days and being interrogated for that length of time?
It seems plausible that the same thing will happen to innocent Arabs and Muslims whom are in the wrong place at the wrong time.
EDIT: Also here - http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20011005_ramasastry....
In practice it probably does not do so. There are two reasons to think this. First you have the fact that even the Bush Administration refused to rely on this provision during either Padilla case, arguing instead that the AUMF of 2001 was the authority to detain, despite the fact that the Supreme Court had ruled in Hamdi that there was at least some Habeas Corpus protection available to those detained under the AUMF, but the exact amount was unclear. It's further worth noting that the Supreme Court threw out Padilla's first habeas petition as improperly filed when Handi was released and in the subsequent petition case (Padilla v. Hanft), the DoJ continued to argue on AUMF grounds, not on suspension clause grounds. When Padilla lost in the 4th Circuit and appealed to the Supreme Court on the second time, the government abruptly decided to charge him in federal court, and then asked the 4th circuit to vacate their decision, which the 4th circuit declined to do (I think that such an effort on Bush's part was meant to slow down the next case).
The second problem is Boumediene v. Bush (decided three years after Hamdi and Padilla v. Hanft), which held that the Military Commissions Act was a suspension of habeas, but that judges should hear habeas petitions anyway, arguing that judges had the power to grant habeas petitions even if Congress suspended the writ. This means that Congress claiming to say habeas doesn't apply doesn't in fact mean that habeas doesn't apply.
I read Supreme Court cases for fun. I suppose this means I need a life :-P