the reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment

this is the fourth amendment to a 'document' called The Constitution:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

this is an exchange from today (via atrios):

QUESTION: Jonathan Landay with Knight Ridder. I'd like to stay on the same issue, and that had to do with the standard by which you use to target your wiretaps. I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution specifies that you must have probable cause to be able to do a search that does not violate an American's right against unlawful searches and seizures. Do you use --

GEN. HAYDEN: No, actually -- the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure.

QUESTION: But the --

GEN. HAYDEN: That's what it says.

QUESTION: But the measure is probable cause, I believe.

GEN. HAYDEN: The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.

QUESTION: But does it not say probable --

GEN. HAYDEN: No. The amendment says --

QUESTION: The court standard, the legal standard --

GEN. HAYDEN: -- unreasonable search and seizure.

QUESTION: The legal standard is probable cause, General. You used the terms just a few minutes ago, "We reasonably believe." And a FISA court, my understanding is, would not give you a warrant if you went before them and say "we reasonably believe"; you have to go to the FISA court, or the attorney general has to go to the FISA court and say, "we have probable cause."

And so what many people believe -- and I'd like you to respond to this -- is that what you've actually done is crafted a detour around the FISA court by creating a new standard of "reasonably believe" in place of probable cause because the FISA court will not give you a warrant based on reasonable belief, you have to show probable cause. Could you respond to that, please?

GEN. HAYDEN: Sure. I didn't craft the authorization. I am responding to a lawful order. All right? The attorney general has averred to the lawfulness of the order.

Just to be very clear -- and believe me, if there's any amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it's the Fourth. And it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment. And so what you've raised to me -- and I'm not a lawyer, and don't want to become one -- what you've raised to me is, in terms of quoting the Fourth Amendment, is an issue of the Constitution. The constitutional standard is "reasonable." And we believe -- I am convinced that we are lawful because what it is we're doing is reasonable.

and here is abu gonzales in a short interview on Lehrer today:

ALBERTO GONZALES: And, again, I'm talking about a very limited focus program, Jim, where one avenue of communication has to be outside the United States, and we have to have a reasonable basis to believe that a party to the call is a member of al-Qaida or a member of an organization that is affiliated with al-Qaida.
[snip]
ALBERTO GONZALES: Well, again, I would repeat that this is a very limited program. We have a reasonable basis to believe that one party of the communication is a member of al-Qaida or a member of a group affiliated with al-Qaida.
[snip]
ALBERTO GONZALES: What the president has authorized and only has authorized is the electronic surveillance of those communications where one call is outside the United States and where we have a reasonable basis to believe that a party of that conversation is a member of al-Qaida or a member of a group affiliated with al-Qaida.

do you think that we might see a full-scale rollout of this talking point from this day hence?

(separately, is KnightRidder the only journalismism organization in the country?)