If they're not chasing terrorists, just what are they doing?

June 3, 2002 9:58 AM

If they're not chasing terrorists, just what are they doing? Eavesdropping on a New Orleans cathouse, apparently.
posted by gimonca (15 comments total)

"There are men on that list that are more afraid of their wives than of the federal government."
posted by sheauga at 10:27 AM on June 3, 2002

oh, good. i'm glad the feds are allocating resources to fight important threats like this.
posted by zoopraxiscope at 10:30 AM on June 3, 2002

the impeccably furnished brothel on upper Canal Street -- "everything in that place was from Pottery Barn," a neighbor said

[snob]So that's what passes for "impeccably furnished" these days.[/snob]
posted by ook at 10:41 AM on June 3, 2002

oh, good. i'm glad the feds are allocating resources to fight important threats like this.

The application for a wiretap included suspicions of drug dealing and organized crime -- could either of those be considered an "important threat"? How would they know if they didn't investigate?

A crime is a crime. Should every law enforcement agency in the US dedicate themselves to anti-terrorism and ignore everything else?
posted by joaquim at 10:49 AM on June 3, 2002

i never said that there might not have been legitimate reasons for the initial inquiry. still, in my opinion, any federal money spent prosecuting a case like this would be much better spent by throwing it down a sewer. i do like the way this helps expose that the Bush admin's lip service to state's rights is naught but another political sham.
posted by zoopraxiscope at 10:56 AM on June 3, 2002

A crime is a crime. Should every law enforcement agency in the US dedicate themselves to anti-terrorism and ignore everything else?

Yes, but this is a crime which is generally just a misdemeanor and not a federal crime. None of the items they were looking for according to the wiretap application (drug dealing, mob-mentions, etc.) were turned up. So why did the FBI devote 13 months to this? As soon as they realized this was a dead-end -- hell, as soon as 9/11 happened -- they should have alerted local law enforcement and left the case to them.
posted by jennak at 10:56 AM on June 3, 2002

Maybe this is one reason why they're overhauling the FBI? "Dammit, Frank, stop snooping on the hookers! There's terror afoot!"
posted by krewson at 11:02 AM on June 3, 2002

i do like the way this helps expose that the Bush admin's lip service to state's rights is naught but another political sham. - zoopraxiscope

As soon as they realized this was a dead-end -- hell, as soon as 9/11 happened -- they should have alerted local law enforcement and left the case to them. - jennak

What you've discovered is why this article was written and published. Check out the CNN homepage right now. The lead story is about how the FBI was covering up information. One of CNN's polls was, "Should the FBI be replaced with a new organization?" The media has found itself a topic that it will now milk for as long as there is outrage. Congrats, you've just prolonged the FBI-evil meme for another day.

BTW, this type of this happens ALL THE TIME. Yeesh.
posted by BlueTrain at 11:06 AM on June 3, 2002

This reminds me of the PeeWee Herman bust where there was a horde of dedicated police officers ensuring the safety of the public by staking out a porn theater.
posted by srboisvert at 11:28 AM on June 3, 2002

There's that, and the untold billions spent on fighting the 'dread scourge' of a weed which anyone at all has yet to prove to have killed anyone.

That is of course a much, much more important cause to federales than to try and stop genocidal murderers like the 9/11 19.

With that cr*ppy attitude towards actual loss of life no wonder Rummy considers a WMD attack to be inevitable.
posted by clevershark at 11:29 AM on June 3, 2002

Hoover had his G-Men reading playboy for decades, BlueTrain. Just because it happens all the time means it's ok?
posted by insomnyuk at 11:29 AM on June 3, 2002

Just because it happens all the time means it's ok?

I'm not condoning anything. What I'm saying is that the "oh my God those bastards" lunacy being shown in this thread is completely unnecessary and naive.
posted by BlueTrain at 11:44 AM on June 3, 2002

I'm not condoning anything. What I'm saying is that the "oh my God those bastards" lunacy being shown in this thread is completely unnecessary and naive.

What?? How is this lunacy; nobody here is being hysterical or anything. (OMIGOD -- LET'S SHUT DOWN THE FBI!!!) But I think it is okay -- perhaps even patriotic -- to voice our disapproval. Yes, this isn't the only stupid thing the FBI has done. But that's no reason to ignore this one.
posted by jennak at 12:13 PM on June 3, 2002

Me, I think this is just further proof that brothels should be legal. (Note keyword brothels.) Ladies of negotiable affection should be allowed to work in safe, clean environments, with access to medical care and veto power over their clientele. The demand will always be there, the suppliers will always be there, we might as well make it safe and profitable for the ladies involved.

(I feel the same way about drug laws...it's a waste of tax payer money to imprison pot smokers and coke blowers...better we should have FDA grades of drugs available over the counter and taxed like tobacco, beer and booze.)

I hardly see this as a federal case, and am fairly annoyed that federal tax dollars were spent so they could get a money laundering plea for less that $700...that's just the height of absurdity.

And the republicans have a long history of not respecting state's rights, and President Bush has a short history of not understanding anything not spelled out in crayon, so that part doesn't surprise me at all. :)
posted by dejah420 at 1:02 PM on June 3, 2002

dejah420: You're not expecting law enforcement to be a for-profit operation are you? They came, they listened, they salvaged what they could from a dry hole (no offense to the brothel operators).

As far as absurd ROI goes, this isn't even a blip on the same radar screen that includes Ken Starr.
posted by joaquim at 2:12 PM on June 3, 2002