ibenez wrote:
I don't think the constitution grants anyone privacy in their telephone conversations.

Listening in on telephone/internet traffic isn't forbidden in the constitution either - so if a terrorist or NON-terrorist wants to talk without having someone listen in - they have to either setup their own telephone network; use two cans and strings, or just go talk in in their house privately.

I'll bite, but you are trolling. You could have obviously Googled the answer to your question. You are, of course, free to disagree with established precedent. In fact, the Supreme Court held that wiretapping wasn't covered by the 4th amendment for several decades before this decision. However it is, in fact, currently the law in the United States that the content of telephone conversations are protected by the 4th amendment whether you agree with it or not.

Furthermore, during the period when telephone conversations were not held to be covered by the 4th amendment, Congress required by statute that a warrant be obtained for them anyway, and it seems very clear to me that they would do so again, particularly given FISA.

That brings us to the subject of terrorists, which you mentioned. Without dissecting your statement let me simply point out that although the 4th amendment does protect the privacy of terrorist telephone calls, it has been held that warrantless surveillance of those calls is "reasonable" per the 4th amendment. The reason that the NSA needs a warrant for domestic surveillance of foreign intelligence targets is because it is required by FISA, a statute, and not because it is required by the 4th amendment.

The bottom line is that it is extremely unlikely that you are going to see a situation wherein the police can listen to ordinary telephone calls without a warrant regardless of how you interpret the Constitution.

RE: Administration Set to Use New Spy Program in US