This is something that confuses me.
Were the calls that were eavesdropped of US citizens? Or were they of non-citizens who happened to be in the US? The reports that I heard indicated that it was the latter.
Most foreign countries substantially abridge the rights of American citizens in their countries compared to their citizens. I have direct first-hand experience on this count. I see no reason for the US not to do the same.
In fact, we already do. Non-citizens in the US are generally denied the rights, enjoyed by citizens, to:
. reside . employment . possess a firearm . public assistance . vote, etc.
There are means by which a non-citizen can get these rights (green card, alien firearms license, etc.); but normally visitors to the US are very much limited compared to citizens and green card holders.
I don't see why a non-citizen should expect the right to privacy of communications in the US if that non-citizen falls under suspicion of terrorism.
You can bet that outside the US, the phones of anyone suspected of terrorist ties are tapped, EU regulations or not. In some cases, the bureaucracy conceals it, and it's a crime for the press to reveal what the bureaucracy has concealed.
In other cases (e.g., Canada), the very document that states all these wonderful rights gives the government the power to abridge them whenever it thinks it's necessary. Don't believe me? Read Canada's "Charter of Rights and Freedoms", and note the "notwithstanding" clauses (in particular section 33):
-- Mark --