Wow, you honestly believe that you have less right to the private aspects of your live than your Congresscritter? You consider yourself to have an inferior claim to the rights imbued by the Constitution... huh.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

But, regardless of what I think, according to your article, the Bush Administration agreed with you:

_________________
Hope is the new black.

I didn't say I should have fewer rights than my worthless fuck of a congressman. And please don't try to imply I'm a fanboy of someone I wanted impeached for (among other things) screwing around with people's rights in the name of "security."

_________________
"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."

-- Marcus Tullius Cicero

I was replying to joxur.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

Private citizens with their right to free speech and the press can have a very powerful affect on the government. Their privacy insures they don't lose that check on governmental power. Yes politicians privacy is important as well but privacy is important for everyone.

"You are fooling yourself, Captain. Nothing here is what it seems. You are not the plucky hero, the Alliance is not an evil empire, and this is not the grand arena."

_________________
"My doctor says that I have a malformed public-duty gland and a natural deficiency in moral fibre and that I am therefore excused from saving universes."

Sorry, Jox, I must be missing it somewhere...

Both sides of this actually make interesting arguments.

On one hand, the executive branch infiltrating (so to speak) the legislative branch poses problems.

On the other hand, by running for public life, don't you give up a certain amount of privacy that ordinary citizens would expect?

I'm sure Nixon and Hoover would agree with that.

There's privacy, and then there's this. This sort of use of a federally funded investigative agency goes a fair bit beyond invasion of privacy. Frankly I'm surprised at the amount of semantics being thrown around. It's what one would expect from a supporter of the warrantless wiretaps.

Ordinary citizens also expect the officials they elect to vote in their best interest, and in the capacity under which they were elected. If they were investigated without cause, that should be open for public digestion so we can vote based on our opinion of it. If they were engaging in criminal behavior that brought about the investigation, then let's see a prosecution no?