Blithely, Blithely

* While the statutory privacy laws have an exception for this type of monitoring, see 18 U.S.C. 2511(f), and the constitutional limits on e-mail surveillance are uncertain even in traditional criminal cases, the constitutionality of warrantless interception of telephone calls in situations like this is really murky stuff.

* DOMESTIC SPYING BY THE NSA? . . . it really is a major shift in U.S. surveillance policy -- though I'm not sure whether snooping on international calls that originate or end in the U.S. is such a big departure. Orin Kerr [of Volokh Conspiracy] has more. "While the statutory privacy laws have an exception for this type of monitoring, see 18 U.S.C. 2511(f), and the constitutional limits on e-mail surveillance are uncertain even in traditional criminal cases, the constitutionality of warrantless interception of telephone calls in situations like this is really murky stuff. "

I can't see any very compelling reason to bypass the courts here, especially given that warrants in these cases are almost always granted. Which makes me wonder what's up.

* To which Instapundit reader James Somers emailed:

If you'd asked me (and you didn't) three months ago, I would have said '06 is looking like '94. But it is indeed heading towards the '02 paradigm now instead. The "domestic spying" issue reinforces this. I expect CNN, CBS, etc, will be too frightened to actually commission a poll on the NSA wiretap issue. They know what they'll find - a solid majority of Americans is going to have no problem with what the Administration has done here. In fact, they probably already assumed it was doing exactly this sort of thing.

But for some people, it's always 1972 - you know, back when George McGovern won in a landslide because Americans were anti-Vietnam war.