Under the guise of civil liberties yet. Priceless. Spitzer's money transactions were fishy, so the feds investigated. It turns out that he wasn't doing the fishy thing they thought (bribery), but another fishy thing (renting hookers). A sitting prosecutor and governor habitually broke the law.

Spitzer is not Thoreau, and what the FBI did was not Big Brother.

Too bad the most important point Emily made was buried under a bunch of stuff. That point is: the laws allowing statistical fishing expeditions were passed for the sole purpose of ferreting out international terrorists. Once that it was NOT an international terrorism plot, those results should have been (and in my argument, legally are) off limits for local prosecutors, not info to be shared.

Sex crimes have long been the province of state's rights. How could the state prosecute this without info from the federal terrorist system? This is exactly why the Bush administration terrorism prosecution rules cannot remain--the constitutional protections of citizens will not remain. And I am NOT defending Spitzer. I just think that prosecutors have too much discretion, and one way they use it is by picking and choosing unpopular defendents to start with, and thereby eroding the protections for the rest of us. They will get to us, you wait and see. Or don't.

It's a federal crime by virtue of her travelling across state lines to service the Gov. A stupid law it may be, but that's not the point.

First, I think that the laws need to be changed to avoid statistical fishing expeditions.

However, i don't think you can ever pass a single-purpose law-enforcement tool. Any tool one passes will always be used for a variety of uses. This is something which is *critical* to remember regarding civil liberties in an age where we worry about terrorism. So I think that point is valid. I just don't think it applies to Spitzer.