>>The fundamental question perhaps is whether electronic communications of the kind being recorded and examined are a "private thing" protected by the Constitution, or because of the ease with which it's accessible - and known to be accessed - it should be considered to be similar to "conversations in public" which may generally be legally recorded and used in court actions.<<

It's not what is being listened to so much as why. What safeguards do I have that won't suddenly make me a "terrorist suspect"? If they were searching for child-perdators--fine. There is a very specific type of communication being searched for. The problem here is, what exactly constitutes a suspicious communication?

>>A few Federal Court decisions have held, or appear to have applied the interpretation, that internet communications are not "private" in the sense of the Fourth Amendment. There are few cases that offer clues to how the Courts would interpret the "telephone" converstations that are the main object of the recent NSF surveillance.<<

It's not the privacy that is so much at issue as the legality of Bush's order to begin with. Even if they are not private, is he authorized to order people to examine and gather those communications they think are "of interest" and that the companies that own the means of transmitting those communications be ordered or bullied into participating?

>>There are massive numbers of cases in which Federal Courts have held that situations where most people would assume a "right of privacy" are NOT PRIVATE in the sense of the 4th Amendment. (Most of these involve prosecution of "morals" violations, but they are citable precedent.)<<

Yes, but what Bush is doing is a whole different animal. Does he have the authority to order warrantless wiretaps/searches? That he would want to monitor communications is not at issue. The govt should be allowed to because it does serve a public good more than it does any harm--when established legal channels are employed. Does Bush have the authority to say, "Forget about private or non-private--that's not important. I have a war to fight and a country to protect and I'll do whatever the hell I have to and no one is going to stop me." Because is what Bush is essentially doing that is how the 4th amendment is being violated--because it is being skirting under the ever popular "national security" label.

>>Altogether a messy situation.<<

It will get much messier. Just when the pro-Bush legal beagles and pundits work out an argument totally justfying Bush monitoring virtually all calls coming into and leaving the country, it will be revealed that they monitored calls inside the country too. And Bush will once again say, "Well, obviously, I need to be able to do that in order to protect you from another attack. You think terrorists don't make calls to each other inside the U.S.? Common sense, people!" And then what?