NationStates Jolt Archive

The ACLU is defending... Larry Craig, a Republican who is ranked at 25% on civil rights by the ACLU. So what do they do? They volunteer to represent Craig. They are agreeing with him that he was entrapped and saying his civil rights were violated.

This ought to show those damn hippy liberals that the ACLU is a terrible, horrible, biased organization by protecting this obviously guilty pervert.

Sarcasm?

Sarcasm?

Only the last line and the topic. :rolleyes:

It's a shame people need an NGO in the first place to defend their rights.

So and if he was a heterosexual shooting some girls in the bathroom, then he was a macho hero.

I don't get it, why people have such an absurd sick interest in another his/her sex-life.

I never understood that Clinton-Monica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Monica_lewinsky.jpg) thing as well. What the hell! It's their business!!!

But NO.

I don’t care about such ugly (Monica was very ugly, to USA standards she's slim, go figure!) people their sex-life.

If that Larry Laffer Craig is that dumb to pick up some other men in a toilet... Sure it’s very George Michael (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_michael), but it’s still HIS business.

USA, land of the free and stuff. Yes, unless some good old fashioned sex is involved.

Shame on YOU, USA! Hypocrite and biggest porn producer in the world!

Everybody is f*cking around but when a politician is trapped while f*cking (or trying to get some f*ck) then he or she is f*cked for real!

Maybe they should have arrested him due he is a Republican. That's at least a good reason to put someone behind bars.

Use your common sense!

Civil rights are civil rights. The ACLU at least has the decency to lead by example even if they don't fundamentally agree with this prat.

Larry Craig is being hounded because he's yet another "Pro family" anti-gay senator who got his hand caught in the cock jar.

Larry Craig is being hounded because he's yet another "Pro family" anti-gay senator who got his hand caught in the cockie jar.

Fixed. :)

One of the unfortunate fallouts of this mess is that Craig was one of the few politicians willing to listen to all sides of the immigration debate and come up with a comprehensive program called AgJobs:

Even the United Farm Workers union and groups like the Idaho Community Action Network – organizations that opposed the most recent round of immigration reforms because they did not offer a large enough amnesty, now back AgJobs.

AgJobs was one component of the larger Senate immigration package that was derailed earlier this year. Farm, labor and immigrant groups are all pushing to have the AgJobs bill introduced on its own merits this year. California Sen. Diane Feinstein is a co-sponsor of the bill, but Craig was a strong conservative advocate for the bill and his loss is a challenge for supporters.

And kudos to the ACLU for standing up for even the worst of us.

They shouldn't. Some people don't deserve civil rights.

They shouldn't. Some people don't deserve civil rights.

Really? Which people, for example?

Really? Which people, for example?

Republicans.

Republicans.

uh huh, riiiight.

And why is that?

Could someone explain why the right thinks it's patriotic for the NRA to defend the 2nd amendment, but it's treasonous for the ACLU to defend the 1st amendment?

Could someone explain why the right thinks it's patriotic for the NRA to defend the 2nd amendment, but it's treasonous for the ACLU to defend the 1st amendment?
Because dey want er gurns!

Could someone explain why the right thinks it's patriotic for the NRA to defend the 2nd amendment, but it's treasonous for the ACLU to defend the 1st amendment?

I don't know, but that's a very good question that I am going to appropriate for my own use.

Could someone explain why the right thinks it's patriotic for the NRA to defend the 2nd amendment, but it's treasonous for the ACLU to defend the 1st amendment?

1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th actually, for the most part.

Of course the irony is that the far-right hates the ACLU because they defend the rights of people to speak which if the ACLU didn't exist would be gone like habeas corpus and the 4th & 5th amendment rights. No I don't agree that the ACLU should defend this f***er but the fact that he has retaqined an ACLU lawyer proves what a bunch of hyppcrites the far right is. Also the HRC has come to defend him to which I think is stupid.

Republicans.

Sorry I'm British you'll have to translate that into Tory, Labour, or Lib Dems for me?

Of course the irony is that the far-right hates the ACLU because they defend the rights of people to speak which if the ACLU didn't exist would be gone like habeas corpus and the 4th & 5th amendment rights. No I don't agree that the ACLU should defend this f***er but the fact that he has retaqined an ACLU lawyer proves what a bunch of hyppcrites the far right is. Also the HRC has come to defend him to which I think is stupid.

Why is he a fucker, what did he do and what is he being defended against?

Sorry I'm British you'll have to translate that into Tory, Labour, or Lib Dems for me?

Somewhere between BNP and Tories, with a splash of rape the poor.

Sorry I'm British you'll have to translate that into Tory, Labour, or Lib Dems for me?

We only have two (well, there are hundreds of minor parties that don't have a chance.).

Republicans tend to want things to stay the same. Tend to be conservative Christians that take the Bible literally or businessmen that are looking to make a profit from the government and farmers. Republicans tend to think they are the only patriotic people. The support government action right or wrong. They can see few flaws in military action. In the past they were the party that didn't spend money but that has totally turned around. The three biggest spenders and borrowers by far are the last three Republican administrations. They are the "borrow and spend" party as they will do anything not to raise taxes. They don't spend money on social programs. They believe in survival of the fittest in life and business but not in biology. They used to think that less government was better, but the last three have expanded government.

Democrats are just the opposite. They tend to care about people and social programs at the expense of the military. They tend to be the poor, union workers and best educated middle management. Also, Hollywood stars. They tend to see criticizing the government as patriotic. They want change toward improvement. In the past they were called the "tax and spend" party, but the most recent administrations have been more careful with the money than the Republicans. They think that taxes should be paid so there can be services. They tend to be the party of peace, but have led in some recent wars (WW2, Vietnam)


Or as a humorist once said:

Republicans always pull down the shades though there is seldom a reason.

Democrats never pull down the shades though they always should.

Somewhere between BNP and Tories, with a splash of rape the poor.

Ahhhh ahhh I see, then the answer is yes!:p

I don't understand why so many Americans hate the ACLU for defending the US constitution: you have one of the best constitutions in the world (barring unrestricted gun ownership) and I'd give my left arm for a similar constitution for the UK.

Why is he a fucker, what did he do and what is he being defended against?

He was a Senator that was strongly against Gay Rights. He was from a strong Bible believing area.

He was caught in the men's room at the airport soliciting gay sex from a stranger who turned out to be a policeman.

If it had been a woman, the party could have forgiven him, but because it was a man they immediately turned on him and demanded he resign.

If I wanted to lose a bet, and lose it badly, I'd wager that Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh (HIMSELF defended by the ACLU at one time), Matt Drudge, Lars Larsen, and all the other neo-con talking-point dispensers will mention this little news nugget and thank God for the ACLU.

If I were a big fan of passing out, I'd hold my breath and wait for the mention of the ACLU in glowing terms for defending someone who deserves to be defended from overzealous airport cops. Folks, I've heard the tapes -- Larry Craig was entrapped and framed. Overzealous persecution of anyone is bad for freedom. And Craig, while not a recorded supporter of many civil rights, did not do anything illegal or even wrong, if those tapes are all the evidence they have.

He was a Senator that was strongly against Gay Rights. He was from a strong Bible believing area.

He was caught in the men's room at the airport soliciting gay sex from a stranger who turned out to be a policeman.

If it had been a woman, the party could have forgiven him, but because it was a man they immediately turned on him and demanded he resign.

Except that all he was caught doing was making a hand gesture and maybe bumping someone's foot. I've made incidental contact in sardine-like restroom stalls a few times in my life. I've never been arrested for it. I'm not a Craig supporter, but this whole thing is crap.

By the way, how could it have been a woman...soliciting a man...in the men's room? Unless you're saying that if it had been a woman "soliciting" a female cop she'd have been treated differently?

Could someone explain why the right thinks it's patriotic for the NRA to defend the 2nd amendment, but it's treasonous for the ACLU to defend the 1st amendment?

Could someone explain why the left thinks it's proper for the ACLU to defend the first amendment, but it's tantamount to murder for the NRA to defend the 2nd amendment?

(PROTIP: The answer to both is 'ignorance')

He was a Senator that was strongly against Gay Rights. He was from a strong Bible believing area.

He was caught in the men's room at the airport soliciting gay sex from a stranger who turned out to be a policeman.

If it had been a woman, the party could have forgiven him, but because it was a man they immediately turned on him and demanded he resign.

Bwahahahahah! Great, ohhhh great! Ohh the hypocrasy!


So let me get this straight, he is being defended by the ACLU as a minority Gay man? I mean what is the reason for the ACLU's decistion to defend him, under which of their criteria is he deemed to need their aid?

I don't understand why so many Americans hate the ACLU for defending the US constitution: you have one of the best constitutions in the world (barring unrestricted gun ownership) and I'd give my left arm for a similar constitution for the UK.

The problem is conservatives believe: If you say something I agree with, If you are a good true Christian (my denomination or close), If you print what I agree with, If you march in support of war---then you should have all the rights in the world.

But if you are a no good unpatriotic bastard that isn't a Christian, talks foolishness that goes against the government, print ads ridiculing a general, and join a war protest---then you should have no rights.



* First Amendment – Freedom of religion, speech, press, and peaceable assembly as well as the right to petition the government.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Could someone explain why the left thinks it's proper for the ACLU to defend the first amendment, but it's tantamount to murder for the NRA to defend the 2nd amendment?

(PROTIP: The answer to both is 'ignorance')

For me, it's not so much that they defend the right. It's the stupid obnoxious way they go about it.

Could someone explain why the left thinks it's proper for the ACLU to defend the first amendment, but it's tantamount to murder for the NRA to defend the 2nd amendment?

(PROTIP: The answer to both is 'ignorance')

Yea I'm for all of the "rights" amendments.

Event the one about not allowing British troops to stay in private houses.

Bwahahahahah! Great, ohhhh great! Ohh the hypocrasy!


So let me get this straight, he is being defended by the ACLU as a minority Gay man? I mean what is the reason for the ACLU's decistion to defend him, under which of their criteria is he deemed to need their aid?

God damnit, this affront to the English language can stand no further.

It's HYPOCRISY. You're BRITISH, for Christ's sake!

Bwahahahahah! Great, ohhhh great! Ohh the hypocrasy!


So let me get this straight, he is being defended by the ACLU as a minority Gay man? I mean what is the reason for the ACLU's decistion to defend him, under which of their criteria is he deemed to need their aid?

ACLU defends anyone who's rights they deem violated. Regardless of their status.

Bwahahahahah! Great, ohhhh great! Ohh the hypocrasy!


So let me get this straight, he is being defended by the ACLU as a minority Gay man? I mean what is the reason for the ACLU's decistion to defend him, under which of their criteria is he deemed to need their aid?

I guess the OP will have to tell us.

I googled ACLU Craig and got nothing.

I guessed that it had to do with Craig saying that he will fight the original charge because he was coerced into signing a confession. So it would be a right to trial issue.

Bwahahahahah! Great, ohhhh great! Ohh the hypocrasy!


So let me get this straight, he is being defended by the ACLU as a minority Gay man? I mean what is the reason for the ACLU's decistion to defend him, under which of their criteria is he deemed to need their aid?

Simple and obvious. He alleges that his rights were or are being violated, and at least one attorney at the ACLU thinks that case can be made. Plus, he no doubt came up with the full retainer fee.

EDIT: I sincerely doubt Craig is alleging anti-gay bias against himself. I believe he is alleging entrapment by the police.

i dont think it was entrapment.

the minneapolic PD put an officer in a bathroom stall in the airport. all HE did was wait for the foot tapping and hand waving to commence. he wasnt soliciting the patrons or seducing unwilling straight men into thoughts of hot gay sex in a public place. he was sitting on the can.

if gay trysts in airport bathrooms are a problem its as good a way as any to curtail them.

Glad to hear this. It would have been easy enough for the ACLU to say "This guy wants to take away others' rights, let's see how he likes it," but they took the high road.

OMG! Teh ACLU defends perverts!!! :eek:

What's the ACLU anyway?

I'm sorry I'm Belgian and too lazy to enter those words in Google.

If I wanted to lose a bet, and lose it badly, I'd wager that Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh (HIMSELF defended by the ACLU at one time), Matt Drudge, Lars Larsen, and all the other neo-con talking-point dispensers will mention this little news nugget and thank God for the ACLU.

If I were a big fan of passing out, I'd hold my breath and wait for the mention of the ACLU in glowing terms for defending someone who deserves to be defended from overzealous airport cops. Folks, I've heard the tapes -- Larry Craig was entrapped and framed. Overzealous persecution of anyone is bad for freedom. And Craig, while not a recorded supporter of many civil rights, did not do anything illegal or even wrong, if those tapes are all the evidence they have.
I disagree. I listened to those tapes many times because, you know, they're just so good, I can't get enough. :D

And my take on them was that I never heard a bigger crock of shit than Craig's weasling excuses and "explanations" of the gymnastics he claims he has to go through just to take a dump in a men's room. As far as I'm concerned, based on the appearance of guilt in those tapes, the chances are greater than not that Larry "Wide Stance" Craig is a big closet queen who needs to come out and learn how to live with himself, so the rest of the world can carry on living without him (and his legislative interference).

Now, of course, my opinion, which is apparently shared by the police and prosecutor in the case, is not the same as proof of guilt. Need for proof of guilt was eliminated by Craig's guilty plea to disorderly conduct, which, again in my opinion, is what such (alleged) behavior should amount to.

If Craig and his hippy-leftist ACLU lawyer can persuade a judge that Craig was entrapped, then he should be able to withdraw his guilty plea, and then it will be up to the prosecutor to decide if he has enough on Craig to bring him to trial on the greater charges. I doubt that he does. If Craig can withdraw his plea, this matter will go away, and Craig will get away with whatever he has gotten away with -- at the very least being a pain in the nation's ass yet again.

"We believe the sting operation used to apprehend Mr. Craig was unconstitutional. The statute the government is relying upon makes it a crime to use certain offensive words," said Anthony Romero, the executive director of the ACLU.

Police say Craig solicited sex from a police officer by tapping his foot and waving his hand under the stall divider. The arresting officer also says Craig peeked into his stall.

Craig denied at the time and continues to deny that he solicited sex from the officer through his gestures. He contends his actions were misinterpreted and he has adamantly denied that he is gay.

But the ACLU says it doesn't matter whether he solicited sex because that's not a crime.

"It is a crime to have sex in public. It is not a crime to propose or solicit sex in public, whether it's in a bar or in a bathroom," Romero said.


http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3611682

im not sure that craig is going to be THRILLED that the aclu thinks that it should be legal for him to be soliciting gay sex in public restrooms. its not quite the point he is trying to make.

What's the ACLU anyway?

I'm sorry I'm Belgian and too lazy to enter those words in Google.

American Civil Liberties Union.

They are an organization of lawyers who take on cases involving alleged violations of civil rights under the US Constitution. They are controversial because they take on cases on both the extreme political left and the extreme political right, and defend people who others consider Evil Incarnate (tm) for various political reasons.

Senator Craig, the person in this case, is one of those who traditionally would hate the ACLU, but the fact that he has retained an ACLU lawyer goes to show what I have always said: They can bitch and bitch all they like, but when it's THEIR rights that are at stake, they go running to the ACLU like a little kid running to its mamma.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3611682

im not sure that craig is going to be THRILLED that the aclu thinks that it should be legal for him to be soliciting gay sex in public restrooms. its not quite the point he is trying to make.

THey have a point though. Just because the closet gay senator wanted his knob gobbled by a stranger in a bathroom, doesn't automatically mean he wanted it gobbled there.

ANd since when did it become illegal to ask for sex, anyway? :p

i dont think it was entrapment.

the minneapolic PD put an officer in a bathroom stall in the airport. all HE did was wait for the foot tapping and hand waving to commence. he wasnt soliciting the patrons or seducing unwilling straight men into thoughts of hot gay sex in a public place. he was sitting on the can.

if gay trysts in airport bathrooms are a problem its as good a way as any to curtail them.
I agree. I heard nothing on those tapes that sounded at all like entrapment. However, considering who Craig is and the nature of the media coverage, I think it possible that a judge will side with Craig and let him withdraw his guilty plea, whether he says there was also entrapment or not.

In other words, I'm expecting a degree of corruption in this case.

THey have a point though. Just because the closet gay senator wanted his knob gobbled by a stranger in a bathroom, doesn't automatically mean he wanted it gobbled there.

ANd since when did it become illegal to ask for sex, anyway? :p

my thought exactly when i read the aclu's grounds for getting into it.

people solicit sex in public all the time. it certainly isnt a crime to proposition a pretty girl in a bar why should it be illegal to proposition the guy in the next stall with some foot taps?

I have an extremely, EXTREMELY hard time believing "entrapment" in this instance. I see absolutly no entrapment of any kind.

Craig made the actions, then the police officer arrested him. He wasn't coerced into it, forced into it, tricked into it, threatened into it, or compelled to do something he would not ordinarily do, which are the necessities of entrapment.

I can not see how his arrest was, in ANY way, entrapment. What I CAN see however is an argument that his arrest violated his rights, not for entrapment, but because he was arrested for lack of probable cause, as I have a hard time believing "foot tapping" creates a sufficient inference of a willingness to commit criminal acts.

There was absolutly no entrapment of any kind here I can see. I can see concerns for lack of probable cause. Which then leads to one question, why the hell did he confess? Are we lead to believe that a United States Senator, a powerful and experienced man, was tricked by some local police?

I agree. I heard nothing on those tapes that sounded at all like entrapment. However, considering who Craig is and the nature of the media coverage, I think it possible that a judge will side with Craig and let him withdraw his guilty plea, whether he says there was also entrapment or not.

In other words, I'm expecting a degree of corruption in this case.

what is craig expecting to get out of this whole thing?

its not like any thinking person believes that he wasnt looking for a quick hookup in that bathroom. no withdrawal of a guilty plea can change that. it is all just to save face with his family?

my thought exactly when i read the aclu's grounds for getting into it.

people solicit sex in public all the time. it certainly isnt a crime to proposition a pretty girl in a bar why should it be illegal to proposition the guy in the next stall with some foot taps?

the argument goes that the "foot tapping" is a gesture of willingness to commit annoymous sexual acts in public. Presumably it would be just as illegal to attempt to get that pretty girl in the bar to do you then and there.

THey have a point though. Just because the closet gay senator wanted his knob gobbled by a stranger in a bathroom, doesn't automatically mean he wanted it gobbled there.

ANd since when did it become illegal to ask for sex, anyway? :p

Well, this is the part of the case that is unclear, and according to the ABC News quote, above, it is what the ACLU plans to attack. If the sting was just a "sex police" morality type of thing, then I would agree it is unconstitutional. But if the allegation was that those gestures were meant to solicit sex for money -- i.e. prostitution -- then that would be a crime.

All the press on this has said is that that bathroom was used for soliciting sex. No one has made it clear whether it was used by male prostitutes who gave the sex in exchange for money.

However, the case against Craig would still be very, very weak, depending on what that state's "john" laws are, because as far as I know, in order to make a prostitution charge, money has to actually be offered, or a fee for sex acts has to actually be agreed to. So I guess it depends on how detailed that "code" of gestures is supposed to be.

the argument goes that the "foot tapping" is a gesture of willingness to commit annoymous sexual acts in public. Presumably it would be just as illegal to attempt to get that pretty girl in the bar to do you then and there.

well i suppose it IS a good bet that if you pick up a guy in the next stall in the airport you arent going to be going someplace private to do the deed. there ARE no private places in the airport after all.

but surely it could be argued (and i guess will be argued) that that is too long a chain of supposition when all that is being done is a few foot taps and hand waves.

i doubt that the minneapolis police care if it stands up in court or not. they just want the practice to stop. all they have been doing is giving men a ticket and sending them on their way. the embarrassment factor should be enough to get them to not repeat. im betting that that is the case for mr craig.

what is craig expecting to get out of this whole thing?

its not like any thinking person believes that he wasnt looking for a quick hookup in that bathroom. no withdrawal of a guilty plea can change that. it is all just to save face with his family?
Personally, I think he is expecting the whole sorry mess to just go away and be forgotten and for him to be able to go back to business as usual with his same level of privileges and politcal access undented, and no one ever again to question his ethics, morals or integrity. In other words, he expects not to be another Foley, if you recall that scandal. After all, it worked out that way years ago with the first set of sexual misconduct allegations that were made against him. Why shouldn't it do the same now?

Of course, I've never questioned Craig's ethics, morals, or integrity. I have always believed and still believe that he is completely lacking any shred of such things.

well i suppose it IS a good bet that if you pick up a guy in the next stall in the airport you arent going to be going someplace private to do the deed. there ARE no private places in the airport after all.

but surely it could be argued (and i guess will be argued) that that is too long a chain of supposition when all that is being done is a few foot taps and hand waves.

Quite. Which is, as I said, is an argument for lack of sufficient probable cause for arrest, not an argument for entrapment. Craig was in no way "entrapped" into doing anything.

I do not believe he should have been arrested. I do not believe that if someone else did what Craig did that there would be probable cause. I do believe that Craig himself is guilty however. Why? Because he fucking confessed.

So my sympathy sorta ends there.

Well, this is the part of the case that is unclear, and according to the ABC News quote, above, it is what the ACLU plans to attack. If the sting was just a "sex police" morality type of thing, then I would agree it is unconstitutional. But if the allegation was that those gestures were meant to solicit sex for money -- i.e. prostitution -- then that would be a crime.

All the press on this has said is that that bathroom was used for soliciting sex. No one has made it clear whether it was used by male prostitutes who gave the sex in exchange for money.

The problem being that the argument can be made that it's illegal, even barring prostitution if you were trying to solicit sex in public. Under Lawrence v. Texas gay sex isn't illegal, ergo attempting gay sex isn't illegal, as there can be no inchoate crime when the underlying act is legal.

It is illegal to have sex in public however, ergo you can be guilty of an inchoate crime when the underlying act is illegal (provided that the underlying criminal act is an intent crime)

Originally Posted by Neo Art
the argument goes that the "foot tapping" is a gesture of willingness to commit annoymous sexual acts in public. Presumably it would be just as illegal to attempt to get that pretty girl in the bar to do you then and there.
well i suppose it IS a good bet that if you pick up a guy in the next stall in the airport you arent going to be going someplace private to do the deed. there ARE no private places in the airport after all.

but surely it could be argued (and i guess will be argued) that that is too long a chain of supposition when all that is being done is a few foot taps and hand waves.

i doubt that the minneapolis police care if it stands up in court or not. they just want the practice to stop. all they have been doing is giving men a ticket and sending them on their way. the embarrassment factor should be enough to get them to not repeat. im betting that that is the case for mr craig.
Well, yes and no. I don't think it would be illegal of a man to try and get a woman to have sex with him right there in the bar, UNLESS he did it in such a way that the woman complained about it, or it was obviously disruptive to the general business of the place. In that case, I guess it would be disorderly conduct.

And I really don't see how anything that was going on in that bathroom amounts to more than disorderly conduct UNLESS there was actual prostitution going on.

So what I don't understand is what heavier charges Craig thought he was facing, when he plead to the "lesser" charge of disorderly conduct. He engaged in disorderly conduct and he plead guilty to that. Where's the problem? As far as I can see, the only two arguments that make sense would be (1) that Craig did not know about that bathroom and his gestures, made in innocence, were misinterpreted, or (2) that the sting itself was an unconstitutionaly attempt to criminalize non-criminal behavior.

Since (2) is what the ACLU is going for, I'm now starting to think that Craig will not be able to withdraw his guilty plea because he did know what he was doing and was engaging in the conduct the cops called disorderly, and that the prosecutors could prove that. So the best chance is to invalidate the whole event and get Craig's plea withdrawn by default, in a way.

That would be my guess.

Well, yes and no. I don't think it would be illegal of a man to try and get a woman to have sex with him right there in the bar, UNLESS he did it in such a way that the woman complained about it, or it was obviously disruptive to the general business of the place. In that case, I guess it would be disorderly conduct.

Frankly I'm not sure. Sex in public is illegal. Typically it's lewd and licivious conduct in public, or inappropriate sexual acts in public, or public nudity, or god knows what else they call it.

But engaging in sex in public is illegal.

And since sex in public is illegal, it is perfectly permissible for attempting to engage in sex in public would also be illegal. Is it in this case? Ehh, not so sure. But it does not strike me as at all implausable for it to be illegal to attempt to engage in public sex.

The problem being that the argument can be made that it's illegal, even barring prostitution if you were trying to solicit sex in public. Under Lawrence v. Texas gay sex isn't illegal, ergo attempting gay sex isn't illegal, as there can be no inchoate crime when the underlying act is legal.

It is illegal to have sex in public however, ergo you can be guilty of an inchoate crime when the underlying act is illegal (provided that the underlying criminal act is an intent crime)
True. So I guess then the prosecution's burden would be to prove that those exact gestures were a known code for soliciting sex to be conducted in that place. That will not be easy, which is why, regardless of what I consider Craig's obvious guilt, I do not think he will be charged with anything else, if he gets his guilty plea withdrawn.

True. So I guess then the prosecution's burden would be to prove that those exact gestures were a known code for soliciting sex to be conducted in that place. That will not be easy, which is why, regardless of what I consider Craig's obvious guilt, I do not think he will be charged with anything else, if he gets his guilty plea withdrawn.

sure, as I said, I, personally, feel that, given what I know, there was lack of probable cause to substantiate an arrest for attempting to engage in sex in public.

He shouldn't have ever gotten arrested, if that is all there is to the story. He also shouldn't have confessed either. In fact, he has one HELL of a defense. He's an old guy, religious, has a strong religious conviction, his record on premarital sex, and gay sex, is well known. How the FUCK was he supposed to know what the "known codes for soliciting gay sex" were?

Not saying it's true, but it's one hell of a good argument. And all you need is one person on the jury to go "huh, I tap my foot in the bathroom, I had no idea I was telling the guy next to me I wanted to blow him" and case is over.

Frankly, 1) he should have never been arrested and 2) he could have EASILY won this case, if this is all the evidence they had. He probably would have faired even better for it, as the man who "weathered the storm" and didn't give in to those horrible accusations.

But then he confessed. And I have a hard time believing that a United States Senator was tricked or intimidated by local police.

True. So I guess then the prosecution's burden would be to prove that those exact gestures were a known code for soliciting sex to be conducted in that place. That will not be easy, which is why, regardless of what I consider Craig's obvious guilt, I do not think he will be charged with anything else, if he gets his guilty plea withdrawn.

it might be wise for them to drop it if he gets the guilty plea withdrawn.

no case--no aclu saying its unconstitutional--no having to stop rousting gay guys in airport restrooms.

Frankly I'm not sure. Sex in public is illegal. Typically it's lewd and licivious conduct in public, or inappropriate sexual acts in public, or public nudity, or god knows what else they call it.

But engaging in sex in public is illegal.

And since sex in public is illegal, it is perfectly permissible for attempting to engage in sex in public would also be illegal. Is it in this case? Ehh, not so sure. But it does not strike me as at all implausable for it to be illegal to attempt to engage in public sex.
Well, if a man were to try to jump on a woman and go at it, with or without her cooperation, in public, yes, that would be lewd and lascivious conduct.

But if he just said something like, "Hey, babe, blow me right here, it's more convenient," that does not seem to rise to exactly the same level. Or maybe it's at the same level of misdemeanor, but not the same nature of act.

One is clearly attempting to engage in sex in public. The other is soliciting public sex. In my opinion, these are two clearly different things. Whether they would be two clearly different things under any given state's laws is another matter.

Well, if a man were to try to jump on a woman and go at it, with or without her cooperation, in public, yes, that would be lewd and lascivious conduct.

But if he just said something like, "Hey, babe, blow me right here, it's more convenient," that does not seem to rise to exactly the same level. Or maybe it's at the same level of misdemeanor, but not the same nature of act.

One is clearly attempting to engage in sex in public. The other is soliciting public sex. In my opinion, these are two clearly different things. Wether they would be two clearly different things under any given state's laws is another matter.

Well, fair enough, but then again, i'm not entirely familiar with the facts of this. The charge, for all I know, may have been soliciting public sex, not attempting public sex.

Which, again, still illegal. And I think we can agree that if his intent was to try and get the guy in the stall over to do a lil sumthin sumthin in the bathroom, then it was, at minimum, soliciting public sex.

sure, as I said, I, personally, feel that, given what I know, there was lack of probable cause to substantiate an arrest for attempting to engage in sex in public.

He shouldn't have ever gotten arrested, if that is all there is to the story. He also shouldn't have confessed either. In fact, he has one HELL of a defense. He's an old guy, religious, has a strong religious conviction, his record on premarital sex, and gay sex, is well known. How the FUCK was he supposed to know what the "known codes for soliciting gay sex" were?

Not saying it's true, but it's one hell of a good argument. And all you need is one person on the jury to go "huh, I tap my foot in the bathroom, I had no idea I was telling the guy next to me I wanted to blow him" and case is over.

Frankly, 1) he should have never been arrested and 2) he could have EASILY won this case, if this is all the evidence they had. He probably would have faired even better for it, as the man who "weathered the storm" and didn't give in to those horrible accusations.

But then he confessed. And I have a hard time believing that a United States Senator was tricked or intimidated by local police.
You make several good points.

I agree that the arrest was extremely shaky.

I suspect that the plan was to do with Craig what had been done with other arrestees - threaten charges, get a confession to disorderly conduct, issue the ticket, and let him go -- a catch and release program, in other words, the goal of which was to make the bathroom whores seek elsewhere. But I think this got away from the cops just as it got away from Craig, because of who Craig is and what he has done in his career and because of the current political climate. The effect or lack of effect this has on Craig's position in Congress is far more important than what actually happened in that bathroom.

I am of the opinion, based on what I heard on the tapes and on Craig's history, that he was indeed trying to solicity gay sex in that bathroom.

And I think that is why he confessed to disorderly conduct, in a panicked moment, when possibly, if I may speculate, visions of Foley and Haggard flashed before his eyes, and he knee-jerk did the stupidest thing he could have done, maybe because the disapproving Officer Gundy was telling him it would all go away if he did.

I too am surprised that a US Senator would be so intimidated by the law, but let's be blunt here: If Craig had half the brains god gave a flea, he wouldn't have been looking for hummers in a public restroom in the first place, now would he? Obviously, the man is an idiot.

it might be wise for them to drop it if he gets the guilty plea withdrawn.

no case--no aclu saying its unconstitutional--no having to stop rousting gay guys in airport restrooms.
I think they will drop it.

Well, fair enough, but then again, i'm not entirely familiar with the facts of this. The charge, for all I know, may have been soliciting public sex, not attempting public sex.

Which, again, still illegal. And I think we can agree that if his intent was to try and get the guy in the stall over to do a lil sumthin sumthin in the bathroom, then it was, at minimum, soliciting public sex.

Yes, definitely. I guess my point was that, depending on that state's laws, that seems to be very much on the same level of crime as disorderly conduct, which they already got their guilty plea for. The media have all been saying that was the "lesser" charge. I'm wondering what greater charge they thought they could slap him with, unless those other charges are only slightly greater. Maybe Craig plead to disorderly conduct only because it doesn't have the words "big lying closeted homo" in it.

I disagree. I listened to those tapes many times because, you know, they're just so good, I can't get enough. :D

Ah, those hits just keep coming, don't they? Mark Foley, Rick Santorum, Jim Trficant, Bob Packwood, Thomas Foley, Gary Hart, Cynthia McKinney, Tom DeLay, Alphonse D'Amato...what is it with being in Congress or the Senate that turns people...or more probably, intensifies people...into complete Caligulan power-whores?

And my take on them was that I never heard a bigger crock of shit than Craig's weasling excuses and "explanations" of the gymnastics he claims he has to go through just to take a dump in a men's room. As far as I'm concerned, based on the appearance of guilt in those tapes, the chances are greater than not that Larry "Wide Stance" Craig is a big closet queen who needs to come out and learn how to live with himself, so the rest of the world can carry on living without him (and his legislative interference).

Now, of course, my opinion, which is apparently shared by the police and prosecutor in the case, is not the same as proof of guilt. Need for proof of guilt was eliminated by Craig's guilty plea to disorderly conduct, which, again in my opinion, is what such (alleged) behavior should amount to.

If Craig and his hippy-leftist ACLU lawyer can persuade a judge that Craig was entrapped, then he should be able to withdraw his guilty plea, and then it will be up to the prosecutor to decide if he has enough on Craig to bring him to trial on the greater charges. I doubt that he does. If Craig can withdraw his plea, this matter will go away, and Craig will get away with whatever he has gotten away with -- at the very least being a pain in the nation's ass yet again.

Okay, point taken. He wasn't entrapped. I can see that. But you and I will never actually know what really happened. There was no video recording, and we have only the word of an airport police officer who, admittedly, was there looking specifically for a certain kind of behavior. Whether Sen. Craig KNEW of that kind of behavior and actively sought engagement in it is something only Sen. Craig knows.

I don't take offense to jumping to the "GUILTY PERVERT" conclusion -- the man pled guilty to a lesser charge, after all. But it seems to me that there's no behavior upon being told you're under arrest for soliciting sex in public that "looks innocent". If you vehemently protest your innocence and shout your defiance, you look guilty. If you meekly say you didn't do anything wrong, you look guilty. If you cop a plea to a lesser charge in an effort to just make it all go away 'cause you're a senator...you look guilty.

Is there reasonable doubt about whether any law was actually broken? Yes. Was anyone in danger of losing life, liberty or property for even a millisecond? No. Then it's a wash. Let the lesser guilty plea stand and only make a mountain outta this molehill if Sen. Craig wants to...which seems to be the case.

I'm not so sure I'd be spot-on with knowing what to say in that situation to the police even if I were innocent. It's a nerve-wringing kind of environment. You could say that Craig's flustered behavior in the tapes is a combination of nerves and remembering that he's a senator and trying to say as right of things as possible under scrutiny and duress. You could also say that the flustered behavior is because he knows he's guilty.

The point is that none of US know for a fact, either way.

I have an extremely, EXTREMELY hard time believing "entrapment" in this instance. I see absolutly no entrapment of any kind.

Craig made the actions, then the police officer arrested him. He wasn't coerced into it, forced into it, tricked into it, threatened into it, or compelled to do something he would not ordinarily do, which are the necessities of entrapment.

I can not see how his arrest was, in ANY way, entrapment. What I CAN see however is an argument that his arrest violated his rights, not for entrapment, but because he was arrested for lack of probable cause, as I have a hard time believing "foot tapping" creates a sufficient inference of a willingness to commit criminal acts.

There was absolutly no entrapment of any kind here I can see. I can see concerns for lack of probable cause. Which then leads to one question, why the hell did he confess? Are we lead to believe that a United States Senator, a powerful and experienced man, was tricked by some local police?

Well said. Thank you for the correction.

what is craig expecting to get out of this whole thing?

its not like any thinking person believes that he wasnt looking for a quick hookup in that bathroom. no withdrawal of a guilty plea can change that. it is all just to save face with his family?

It isn't? I don't believe it. I might suspect it, but I simply don't know. I tap my feet, even in public stalls. Do the cops have anyone willing to say he made X hand gesture, and made it firmly and with deliberate intent? Is there a body of evidence that corroborates that X gesture, without a doubt, means "suck my schwantz like a Dyson"?

If the answer to those questions is even remotely hesitant, then Sen. Craig, like all of us, deserves the benefit of the doubt. It isn't enough to use the old saw about those who complain about immoral behavior the loudest tend to be the most immoral in their private lives. And I'm glad it isn't, because that would mean that stereotypes and folk wisdom have become precedent. That scares the bejeezus outta me.

What's the ACLU anyway?

I'm sorry I'm Belgian and too lazy to enter those words in Google.

American Civil Liberties Union

It's a nonprofit group that defends people who's rights have been violated. They take on a lot of cases of people that are not generally well thought of but whose rights they feel have been violated. They don't charge for this but take donations.

They have a bad reputation from some because they don't tend to defend "popular" people or "popular" causes. They take the case no one else wants.

First, let's fix this quote:

The problem is many conservatives believe: If you say something I agree with, If you are a good true Christian (my denomination or close), If you print what I agree with, If you march in support of war---then you should have all the rights in the world.

While I don't disagree with this statement, let's also look at it from the other side:

The problem is many liberals believe: If you say something I agree with, you're a decent human being. If you disagree with me, you're a gun-toting, war supporting, baby killing scumbag.

Neither side wants to admit the other side has something worthwhile to say.

Senator Craig, according to the police reports, broke a law. Whether this law should be on the books or not isn't even really an issue, at least not in this trial. The point is, he allegedly broke a law.

The ACLU certainly has the right to defend him, if they feel it furthers their agenda to do so. Then again, anyone living in the US has the right to criticize the ACLU for defending him. If there's enough criticism (and I expect there probably will NOT be enough), donations and other forms of income for the ACLU will decline, and it's unlikely a similar case will be defended by the ACLU in the future. The power of economics.

As for the law itself, if enough citizens feel it shouldn't be on the books, then they need to start working on getting it taken off the books. Once again, we see the power of the people at work: Politicians who vote for an unpopular law get voted out, politicians who vote against an unpopular law get voted in. If enough people simply don't give a crap (as is generally the case), then the status quo continues.

Sadly, these days, the status quo generally continues. Not enough people are individually affected by bad laws to get them changed. The last incidence I can think of around where I live is when we had rolling blackouts throughout California (which affected most people in the state) and we collectively voted out the governor who we felt was responsible (whether he was or not). In our defense, rolling blackouts haven't been a problem since then.

It isn't? I don't believe it. I might suspect it, but I simply don't know. I tap my feet, even in public stalls. Do the cops have anyone willing to say he made X hand gesture, and made it firmly and with deliberate intent? Is there a body of evidence that corroborates that X gesture, without a doubt, means "suck my schwantz like a Dyson"?

If the answer to those questions is even remotely hesitant, then Sen. Craig, like all of us, deserves the benefit of the doubt. It isn't enough to use the old saw about those who complain about immoral behavior the loudest tend to be the most immoral in their private lives. And I'm glad it isn't, because that would mean that stereotypes and folk wisdom have become precedent. That scares the bejeezus outta me.

if it were only foot tapping, the charge would be ludicrous. anyone might tap his foot while waiting for things to progress in the restroom. a friendly man might enjoying tapping his foot along with the guy in the next stall in a silly goofy moment.

but that man DOESNT then press his foot up against that mans foot. and he certainly doesnt reach across himself with his left hand to reach up under the stall divider. there just isnt anything innocent about that.

The ACLU certainly has the right to defend him, if they feel it furthers their agenda to do so. Then again, anyone living in the US has the right to criticize the ACLU for defending him. If there's enough criticism (and I expect there probably will NOT be enough), donations and other forms of income for the ACLU will decline, and it's unlikely a similar case will be defended by the ACLU in the future. The power of economics.


it hasnt stopped them so far. they have defended far worse people than larry craig. i dont see that changing in the future.

And I have a hard time believing that a United States Senator was tricked or intimidated by local police.

I don't. Just because he's a US Senator doesn't necessarily mean he's any smarter or braver than anyone else. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised at all that someone could bully him into confessing, as he probably hasn't had to deal with being threatened or bullied in a long time. Or, perhaps, he may have just happened to run into a cop who gave him a sufficiently frightening (and believable) line of bullshit.

if it were only foot tapping, the charge would be ludicrous. anyone might tap his foot while waiting for things to progress in the restroom. a friendly man might enjoying tapping his foot along with the guy in the next stall in a silly goofy moment.

but that man DOESNT then press his foot up against that mans foot. and he certainly doesnt reach across himself with his left hand to reach up under the stall divider. there just isnt anything innocent about that.

Agreed -- if that is, in fact, what happened.

Again, I don't care for the man's record in the Senate, and I'm not defending him because I like him. Rather, I'm out against the politics of "gotcha" and like polarizing trends of modern public life. Will I find it deliciously ironic if Craig gets vilified by his own party as a closeted public sex-seeker after all the anti-gay rhetoric and bill support? Yes. I was the same way for mayor Jim West of Spokane. You lose your credibility instantly in situations like that. But, seeing as that's a very heavy thing to happen to someone whose career depends on credibility, all I'm saying is let's be very, VERY sure the law and due process are observed before hanging the guy by his own petard.

I have mixed thoughts about all this and will have to read the ACLU brief before I comment.

In the meantime, however, let me provide some facts and background documents to inform the discussion:

Senator Craig was arrested on June 11, 2007.

On June 26, 2007, Senator Craig was charged with disorderly conduct under Minn. Stat. § 609.72(1)(3) and interference with privacy under Minn. Stat. § 609.746(1)(c). Here is a copy of the original complaint (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/crim/mn-larry-craig-70207cmp.html) - the relevant statutes are quoted therein.

On August 8, 2007, Craig entered a plea of guilty only to the charge of disorderly conduct. Here is a copy of his guilty plea (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/crim/larry-craig-guilty-plea-agreement.html).

Here is a copy of Craig's motion to withdraw his guilty plea (http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/crim/craigmn91007mot.html). (Which I find to be rubbish). Attached to that document are various documents of interest including a transcipt of Craig's interview with the police.

Finally, here can be found a copy of the ACLU's brief in support of Craig's motion (http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/31842lgl20070917.html). As I noted, I haven't finished reading it yet.

very interesting reading, cat. thanks.

i find the notion of panic a bit less than convincing since he had more than a month to think about it and get legal advice before formally accepting the guilty plea. i thought it was all said and done on the day he got arrested. it turns out that he had more than enough time to figure out the correct way to fight the statesman's crudase against him without pleading guilty to something he was innocent of.

i wouldnt let him withdraw his plea.

very interesting reading, cat. thanks.

i find the notion of panic a bit less than convincing since he had more than a month to think about it and get legal advice before formally accepting the guilty plea. i thought it was all said and done on the day he got arrested. it turns out that he had more than enough time to figure out the correct way to fight the statesman's crudase against him without pleading guilty to something he was innocent of.

i wouldnt let him withdraw his plea.

Ah, I didn't know that. My apologies. Still, I take issue with the idea that simply being a US Senator makes someone less prone to being tricked or intimidated.

Excellent post, Cat-Tribe. You too, Ashmoria.

I had forgotten that he had so much time. All these scandals and news stories start running together after a while.

Yeah. Cook 'im.

I've already clarified what it was that Craig was originally charged with -- invasion of privacy (peering into the stall) and disorderly conduct (the foot tapping, the hands under the stall, etc.)

For me, this case ends rather simply with the fact that Craig pled guilty. Nothing I read in either Craig's motion or the ACLU brief persuades me that he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea. Do they make a good argument that he wouldn't have been convicted if he fought the charges? Yes, especially the ACLU. But that is no longer the issue.

In his interview, he admitted most of the conduct alleged by the officer. Two months later he signed a very clear document admitting his guilt to the charge of disorderly conduct. He has already been found guilty and sentenced for his crime.

Withdrawal of a guilty plea after the case has been fully adjudicated is a rather phenomenal request and nothing about this case justifies extraordinary relief.

Also, I agree with Muravyets that Craig's denials and explanations are hard to swallow. Have you ever accidently bumped the foot of the person sitting in the next bathroom stall? Without noticing or apologizing for it? Have you put your hand under the divider?

Also, I find it telling that Craig's first response in the interview is that he was solicited by the officer. If all that happened was an honest misunderstanding of innocuous actions by Craig, why did Craig think the officer had solicited him for sex? That doesn't fit with the later "I don't know what you are talking about" position.

Anyway, I could go on and on, but I'll move along.

The ACLU is defending... Larry Craig, a Republican who is ranked at 25% on civil rights by the ACLU. So what do they do? They volunteer to represent Craig. They are agreeing with him that he was entrapped and saying his civil rights were violated.

1. Actually neither the ACLU nor Craig argue he was entrapped in the legal papers he filed.

2. The ACLU and Craig don't "agree" on much of anything. Craig claims his plea should be withdrawn because he panicked under pressure and because his actions don't amount to a crime. The ACLU makes an entirely different argument that the statute is unconstitutionally overbroad.

Of course the irony is that the far-right hates the ACLU because they defend the rights of people to speak which if the ACLU didn't exist would be gone like habeas corpus and the 4th & 5th amendment rights. No I don't agree that the ACLU should defend this f***er but the fact that he has retaqined an ACLU lawyer proves what a bunch of hyppcrites the far right is. Also the HRC has come to defend him to which I think is stupid.

Craig hasn't retained the ACLU. They aren't working for him. They filed an amicus ("friend of the court") brief that is completely independent of Craig.

If I were a big fan of passing out, I'd hold my breath and wait for the mention of the ACLU in glowing terms for defending someone who deserves to be defended from overzealous airport cops. Folks, I've heard the tapes -- Larry Craig was entrapped and framed. Overzealous persecution of anyone is bad for freedom. And Craig, while not a recorded supporter of many civil rights, did not do anything illegal or even wrong, if those tapes are all the evidence they have.

As Ashmoria and Neo Art (and others) have explained, Craig was not entrapped. That is based entirely on a misunderstanding of what constitutes entrapment.

And the tapes are not the only evidence -- although they are telling evidence in that Craig admits a great deal -- the primary evidence is the testimony of the arresting officer.

Okay, point taken. He wasn't entrapped. I can see that. But you and I will never actually know what really happened. There was no video recording, and we have only the word of an airport police officer who, admittedly, was there looking specifically for a certain kind of behavior. Whether Sen. Craig KNEW of that kind of behavior and actively sought engagement in it is something only Sen. Craig knows.

I don't take offense to jumping to the "GUILTY PERVERT" conclusion -- the man pled guilty to a lesser charge, after all. But it seems to me that there's no behavior upon being told you're under arrest for soliciting sex in public that "looks innocent". If you vehemently protest your innocence and shout your defiance, you look guilty. If you meekly say you didn't do anything wrong, you look guilty. If you cop a plea to a lesser charge in an effort to just make it all go away 'cause you're a senator...you look guilty.

Is there reasonable doubt about whether any law was actually broken? Yes. Was anyone in danger of losing life, liberty or property for even a millisecond? No. Then it's a wash. Let the lesser guilty plea stand and only make a mountain outta this molehill if Sen. Craig wants to...which seems to be the case.

I'm not so sure I'd be spot-on with knowing what to say in that situation to the police even if I were innocent. It's a nerve-wringing kind of environment. You could say that Craig's flustered behavior in the tapes is a combination of nerves and remembering that he's a senator and trying to say as right of things as possible under scrutiny and duress. You could also say that the flustered behavior is because he knows he's guilty.

The point is that none of US know for a fact, either way.



Well said. Thank you for the correction.



It isn't? I don't believe it. I might suspect it, but I simply don't know. I tap my feet, even in public stalls. Do the cops have anyone willing to say he made X hand gesture, and made it firmly and with deliberate intent? Is there a body of evidence that corroborates that X gesture, without a doubt, means "suck my schwantz like a Dyson"?

If the answer to those questions is even remotely hesitant, then Sen. Craig, like all of us, deserves the benefit of the doubt. It isn't enough to use the old saw about those who complain about immoral behavior the loudest tend to be the most immoral in their private lives. And I'm glad it isn't, because that would mean that stereotypes and folk wisdom have become precedent. That scares the bejeezus outta me.

Agreed -- if that is, in fact, what happened.

Again, I don't care for the man's record in the Senate, and I'm not defending him because I like him. Rather, I'm out against the politics of "gotcha" and like polarizing trends of modern public life. Will I find it deliciously ironic if Craig gets vilified by his own party as a closeted public sex-seeker after all the anti-gay rhetoric and bill support? Yes. I was the same way for mayor Jim West of Spokane. You lose your credibility instantly in situations like that. But, seeing as that's a very heavy thing to happen to someone whose career depends on credibility, all I'm saying is let's be very, VERY sure the law and due process are observed before hanging the guy by his own petard.

1. All of this doubt that Craig may not have committed a crime might be reasonably if Craig had ADMITTED HE COMMITTED THE CRIME AND PLED GUILTY.

2. One can argue whether Craig's reactions to the officer and in the interview were indicative of guilt. But the GUILTY PLEA is a rather solid indicator.

3. Given that HE PLED GUILTY, I don't think we have to be that cautious about judging Craig's credibility.

1. Actually neither the ACLU nor Craig argue he was entrapped in the legal papers he filed.

2. The ACLU and Craig don't "agree" on much of anything. Craig claims his plea should be withdrawn because he panicked under pressure and because his actions don't amount to a crime. The ACLU makes an entirely different argument that the statute is unconstitutionally overbroad.
1) Those are not separate points because point 2 is just nit picking the entrapment thing again.

2) I was citing what I heard this morning on the Today show right before I posted this.

I have mixed thoughts about all this and will have to read the ACLU brief before I comment.

In the meantime, however, let me provide some facts and background documents to inform the discussion:

Senator Craig was arrested on June 11, 2007.

On June 26, 2007, Senator Craig was charged with disorderly conduct under Minn. Stat. § 609.72(1)(3) and interference with privacy under Minn. Stat. § 609.746(1)(c). Here is a copy of the original complaint (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/crim/mn-larry-craig-70207cmp.html) - the relevant statutes are quoted therein.

On August 8, 2007, Craig entered a plea of guilty only to the charge of disorderly conduct. Here is a copy of his guilty plea (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/crim/larry-craig-guilty-plea-agreement.html).

Here is a copy of Craig's motion to withdraw his guilty plea (http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/crim/craigmn91007mot.html). (Which I find to be rubbish). Attached to that document are various documents of interest including a transcipt of Craig's interview with the police.

Finally, here can be found a copy of the ACLU's brief in support of Craig's motion (http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/31842lgl20070917.html). As I noted, I haven't finished reading it yet.
Is it Christmas already?! I didn't get you anything. :( (unwraps that transcript with glee)

1. All of this doubt that Craig may not have committed a crime might be reasonably if Craig had ADMITTED HE COMMITTED THE CRIME AND PLED GUILTY.

2. One can argue whether Craig's reactions to the officer and in the interview were indicative of guilt. But the GUILTY PLEA is a rather solid indicator.

3. Given that HE PLED GUILTY, I don't think we have to be that cautious about judging Craig's credibility.

So, uh...whaddya tryin'a say?

Kidding. Thanks for setting me straight. Like I said in my last post. Cook 'im.

<snip>

Also, I find it telling that Craig's first response in the interview is that he was solicited by the officer. If all that happened was an honest misunderstanding of innocuous actions by Craig, why did Craig think the officer had solicited him for sex? That doesn't fit with the later "I don't know what you are talking about" position.
Excellent point. Thank you for reminding me of it.

<snip>
1. Actually neither the ACLU nor Craig argue he was entrapped in the legal papers he filed.
This might be my fault. I was speculating that they might be arguing entrapment before I learned what the ACLU's argument actually was.

2. The ACLU and Craig don't "agree" on much of anything. Craig claims his plea should be withdrawn because he panicked under pressure and because his actions don't amount to a crime. The ACLU makes an entirely different argument that the statute is unconstitutionally overbroad.



Craig hasn't retained the ACLU. They aren't working for him. They filed an amicus ("friend of the court") brief that is completely independent of Craig.
Thank you for this important clarification. It actually makes the story even funnier. :D

I'm almost starting to feel sad for Mr. Craig. Not quite there...wait...not yet...wait...maybe....ah, no, it's not going to happen. :D:D:D



3. Given that HE PLED GUILTY, I don't think we have to be that cautious about judging Craig's credibility.
That's the last word, as far as I'm concerned. If the man says he did it, I'm not going to argue with him.

Excellent post, Cat-Tribe. You too, Ashmoria.

I had forgotten that he had so much time. All these scandals and news stories start running together after a while.

Yeah. Cook 'im.

We've been skipping pretty fast and loose over the details of this story, and I, for one, totally forgot that not everyone here would be up to date on it. Our bad.

I'm almost starting to feel sad for Mr. Craig. Not quite there...wait...not yet...wait...maybe....ah, no, it's not going to happen. :D:D:D


oh i always feel sorry for those who try so hard to live in denial but cant quite pass up the passion they are trying so desperately to stamp out.

his love of cock doesnt make his anti gay rights stance any more or less reprehensible. after all he IS living the life he wants all gays to have to live.

oh i always feel sorry for those who try so hard to live in denial but cant quite pass up the passion they are trying so desperately to stamp out.

his love of cock doesnt make his anti gay rights stance any more or less reprehensible. after all he IS living the life he wants all gays to have to live.

Very interesting point.

We've been skipping pretty fast and loose over the details of this story, and I, for one, totally forgot that not everyone here would be up to date on it. Our bad.

Kind of you, but it's more that the news here in Bismarck once the two hours of NPR go off the air to be replaced with music is decidedly rightward in its lean. I get Rush, Bill, Sean, Lars, the whole gang. I listen to them because there's little else, but also because I want to be able to know what any potential debating opponent has been fed. Sometimes a residual argument (such as my aforementioned rush to judgement) sticks in my head. I am ashamed of that, actually. Again, very kind of you to correct me with the facts.

Did a discussion just end amicably? :eek:

Did a discussion just end amicably? :eek:

It had to happen sooner or later.

Did a discussion just end amicably? :eek:

Amazing what can happen when people look for the humanity in their opponents/conversers. I fucked up, I admit it. It happens rather a lot, given that my primary focus is music education. That doesn't preclude me from debating issues, but it can hamper my being fully informed.

Besides, who can reasonably stand in the way of Cat and Ash and their diligent displays of sense and links?

I don't know, but that's a very good question that I am going to appropriate for my own use.

We'll make a hippy of you yet ;p

The ACLU is at least following the form and meaning of patriotism as defined in my 'sig' from Thomas Paine.

EVERYONE deserves basic civil rights; even those with a history of trying to thwart those of others. You cannot win a civil rights battle without also protecting the rights of your enemy as well as those you agree with.

We'll make a hippy of you yet ;p

I have been in the past identified as hippy like, but it was mostly when I was a vegan living in the arts district in an apartment with like 12 other people.

This ought to show those damn hippy liberals that the ACLU is a terrible, horrible, biased organization by protecting this obviously guilty pervert.
I'm guessing you're being sarcastic, so I'm not going to disagree with you. However, I would like to point out that the ACLU doesn't defend people because it's thinks they're innocent, but because it thinks that what they did was not wrong (and because everyone needs defending, no matter how clearly guilty they are).

I'm guessing you're being sarcastic, so I'm not going to disagree with you. However, I would like to point out that the ACLU doesn't defend people because it's thinks they're innocent, but because it thinks that what they did was not wrong (and because everyone needs defending, no matter how clearly guilty they are).

that's...particularly narrow. The ACLU often files amicus briefs if they feel the law is unconstitutionally broad (which is not the same thing as "what he did was not wrong" but rather the statute that criminalizes the act is impermissibly broad) as well as in numerous cases when the accused may be accused of something truly horrific like rape or murder, but the collection of the evidence was done in some constitutionally impermissible way.

The ACLU has routinely acted on behalf of death row inmates in order to fight the death penalty, but made little to no claims about the actual innocence of the person.

that's...particularly narrow. The ACLU often files amicus briefs if they feel the law is unconstitutionally broad (which is not the same thing as "what he did was not wrong" but rather the statute that criminalizes the act is impermissibly broad) as well as in numerous cases when the accused may be accused of something truly horrific like rape or murder, but the collection of the evidence was done in some constitutionally impermissible way.

The ACLU has routinely acted on behalf of death row inmates in order to fight the death penalty, but made little to no claims about the actual innocence of the person.

Right. The ACLU, as far as I know, has no stance on whether what Senator Craig did was okay. The point was, the ACLU does not necessarily believe the people it defends are innocent in a legal sense.

I have been in the past identified as hippy like, but it was mostly when I was a vegan living in the arts district in an apartment with like 12 other people.
Well, that'd do it...
I have mixed thoughts about all this and will have to read the ACLU brief before I comment.

In the meantime, however, let me provide some facts and background documents to inform the discussion:

Senator Craig was arrested on June 11, 2007.

On June 26, 2007, Senator Craig was charged with disorderly conduct under Minn. Stat. § 609.72(1)(3) and interference with privacy under Minn. Stat. § 609.746(1)(c). Here is a copy of the original complaint (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/crim/mn-larry-craig-70207cmp.html) - the relevant statutes are quoted therein.

On August 8, 2007, Craig entered a plea of guilty only to the charge of disorderly conduct. Here is a copy of his guilty plea (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/crim/larry-craig-guilty-plea-agreement.html).

Here is a copy of Craig's motion to withdraw his guilty plea (http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/crim/craigmn91007mot.html). (Which I find to be rubbish). Attached to that document are various documents of interest including a transcipt of Craig's interview with the police.

Finally, here can be found a copy of the ACLU's brief in support of Craig's motion (http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/31842lgl20070917.html). As I noted, I haven't finished reading it yet.
What the hell, man? Do you have a "Legal Sense" that starts tingling when a discussion of law comes up around here? I had thought you faded away, then the ACLU comes up and BAM, like Spiderman at the scene of a crime you arrive here just in time using that crazy symbol... § ...what the hell is that anyway? I don't even know how to make it...

Well, that'd do it...

What the hell, man? Do you have a "Legal Sense" that starts tingling when a discussion of law comes up around here? I had thought you faded away, then the ACLU comes up and BAM, like Spiderman at the scene of a crime you arrive here just in time using that crazy symbol... § ...what the hell is that anyway? I don't even know how to make it...

Actually he's been back and posting here for a few days now. Though his legal sense is rather uncanny.

The ACLU is at least following the form and meaning of patriotism as defined in my 'sig' from Thomas Paine.

EVERYONE deserves basic civil rights; even those with a history of trying to thwart those of others. You cannot win a civil rights battle without also protecting the rights of your enemy as well as those you agree with.

C-T has a long history of being legally bitchin'.

That symbol, §, I think stands for "section" as in RCW § 167 (read "RCW section 167").

you arrive here just in time using that crazy symbol... § ...what the hell is that anyway? I don't even know how to make it...

The § is a super secret symbol we lawyers use to communicate with each other.

Actually no, it just means "section". You can find it in the character map program, though if you do as much legal writing as I do, you have it macroed on every damn computer you type on.

The ACLU is defending... Larry Craig, a Republican who is ranked at 25% on civil rights by the ACLU. So what do they do? They volunteer to represent Craig. They are agreeing with him that he was entrapped and saying his civil rights were violated.

This ought to show those damn hippy liberals that the ACLU is a terrible, horrible, biased organization by protecting this obviously guilty pervert.

The ACLU thoroughly enjoys ignoring the rights of the majority to flock to the rights of the minority (not race, numbers). All too often they'll put us in harms way by giving rapists or molestors some nonsense that gives them a get out of jail free card or what not...

I don't understand why so many Americans hate the ACLU for defending the US constitution: you have one of the best constitutions in the world (barring unrestricted gun ownership) and I'd give my left arm for a similar constitution for the UK.
Because the ACLU pisses off alot of conservative Christians when they "crusade" against religion in public places. Also they cry foul every time some criminal has his/her rights violated and criminals (imho) have waaaay to many rights. Its time someone looked more after the victims rights than the criminals rights.

The ACLU thoroughly enjoys ignoring the rights of the majority to flock to the rights of the minority (not race, numbers). All too often they'll put us in harms way by giving rapists or molestors some nonsense that gives them a get out of jail free card or what not...
Damn straight.

The ACLU thoroughly enjoys ignoring the rights of the majority to flock to the rights of the minority (not race, numbers). All too often they'll put us in harms way by giving rapists or molestors some nonsense that gives them a get out of jail free card or what not...

Swinnnnnnng and a miss.

Sonny, upholding the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution isn't just for the people in jail we like. People railroaded by illegal means deserve justice. Because if it isn't given to them, how long before some government denies anyone they want to?

If you don't love the ideas this nation was founded on, you can always leave.

Damn straight.

If, by "straight", you mean "bent way the hell out of proportion by morons who wouldn't know the true meaning of freedom if it bit them on the ass", then yes. Damn straight, indeed.

The § is a super secret symbol we lawyers use to communicate with each other.

Actually no, it just means "section". You can find it in the character map program, though if you do as much legal writing as I do, you have it macroed on every damn computer you type on.

It is actually the symbol for "simolean," the currency used in Sim City.

Your explanation may be true, too, but seeing as Supertopia was founded over one-hundred years ago, I'm pretty sure it was first used the way I described.

Because the ACLU pisses off alot of conservative Christians when they "crusade" against religion in public places. Also they cry foul every time some criminal has his/her rights violated and criminals (imho) have waaaay to many rights. Its time someone looked more after the victims rights than the criminals rights.

Please, oh PLEASE, link to ANY case you can where the ACLU has "crusaded" or otherwise said a single word against religion. Let me save you the time -- you can't. The ACLU files briefs or takes cases where the law is either being ignored, misapplied or broken with regard to things like due process or the freedom of speech. The COURTS decide these cases, not the ACLU -- they're lawyers, not judges. They don't make policy, they advocate.

I don't understand why so many Americans hate the ACLU for defending the US constitution: you have one of the best constitutions in the world (barring unrestricted gun ownership) and I'd give my left arm for a similar constitution for the UK.

The Second Amendment doesn't even really give that. At best, it allows people to have some weapons, and as I and many others believe, it is more for state militias anyway. I heard a historian on NPR saying that everyone assumed it was a states' rights amendment until the Civil War (when states actually took advantage of their militias and attacked the national government). After that, no one really wanted to say that it was there so states could defend themselves against federal tyranny.

Or you can believe what I used to think: the Framers wanted the Bill of Rights to have ten amendments, and when they could only manage nine, they used a Ouija board to decide the last (which they cleverly put as second).

If, by "straight", you mean "bent way the hell out of proportion by morons who wouldn't know the true meaning of freedom if it bit them on the ass", then yes. Damn straight, indeed.
Freedom isnt a criminal going free because a search warrant wasnt specific enough. Freedom isnt having any sort of material excluded from trial unless it was tortured out of a suspect. That should violate the VICTIM'S rights.

If you don't love the ideas this nation was founded on, you can always leave.

Or we can debate or protest it. Thats called freedom. And I hope you arent speaking about the so-called "right of privacy". Please find that in the constitution and come back to me.

The Second Amendment doesn't even really give that. At best, it allows people to have some weapons, and as I and many others believe, it is more for state militias anyway. I heard a historian on NPR saying that everyone assumed it was a states' rights amendment until the Civil War (when states actually took advantage of their militias and attacked the national government). After that, no one really wanted to say that it was there so states could defend themselves against federal tyranny.

Or you can believe what I used to think: the Framers wanted the Bill of Rights to have ten amendments, and when they could only manage nine, they used a Ouija board to decide the last (which they cleverly put as second).

Ouija?!? You unpatriotic, anti-American pinko BASTARD!!!










Everybody knows it was Tarot cards. ;)

Please, oh PLEASE, link to ANY case you can where the ACLU has "crusaded" or otherwise said a single word against religion. Let me save you the time -- you can't. The ACLU files briefs or takes cases where the law is either being ignored, misapplied or broken with regard to things like due process or the freedom of speech. The COURTS decide these cases, not the ACLU -- they're lawyers, not judges. They don't make policy, they advocate.
I put crusaded in their to be sarcastic.:rolleyes:

All too often they'll put us in harms way by giving rapists or molestors some nonsense that gives them a get out of jail free card or what not...

you mean....rights?

uh huh, riiiight.

And why is that?

Because the're evil and wrong and practice Incorrect Thought.

Or we can debate or protest it. Thats called freedom. And I hope you arent speaking about the so-called "right of privacy". Please find that in the constitution and come back to me.

Oh please, not that tired shit again. Totally ignoring the 4th amendment which quite clearly articulates the right to be secure in ones "person and papers", both the 9th amendment and the 14th amedment along with the federalist papers et. al. are quite clear that the constitution was not designed as an exclusive list of rights, and was intented to protect not only those rights specifically enumerated, but as well as protect those rights "fundamental to the principles of ordered liberty".

You know what other rights are not specifically in the constitution?

The right to have sex
The right to not have sex
The right to have children
The right to not have children
The right to travel between states

And a million other rights we exercise every damned day which don't get challenged or argued against, even if they're not actually written, because to deny them would be so contrary to the principles of liberty and freedom that to deny them would defeat the very purpose of the constitution.

Or do you believe that the government can pass a law making it illegal for a woman to refuse sex with any man who offers, given that there is no articulated right to refuse sex in the constitution?

Because the're evil and wrong and practice Incorrect Thought.

uh huh, riiight.

you mean....rights?
And what about the rights of the victim? And doesnt the jury need all the facts to decide a case fairly? A victims rights should ALWAYS come before an accused's rights. Am i suggesting we go KPB or Gestapo style beat-downs? Absolutely not. I am suggesting that evidence should not be thrown out as much as it is today for absurd reasons.

Freedom isnt a criminal going free because a search warrant wasnt specific enough. Freedom isnt having any sort of material excluded from trial unless it was tortured out of a suspect. That should violate the VICTIM'S rights.

Or we can debate or protest it. Thats called freedom. And I hope you arent speaking about the so-called "right of privacy". Please find that in the constitution and come back to me.

Junior, if I'd been speaking about such a right, I assure you, I'd have mentioned it by name. You're correct, there is no explicit "right to privacy", but there IS due process, and when that isn't followed and someone's locked up because of it, everyone's rights are tarnished. Not a hell of a lot, but over time, if it happened enough, we could wind up losing due process altogether, as the American CITIZENS of Japanese descent discovered to their collective horror in WWII.

If the search warrant isn't issued correctly and the prosecutor makes a case, then it's the defense's JOB, and DUTY to point that out. It's how we make sure the laws about the INCREDIBLE amount of authority we WILLINGLY give to the police are NOT ABUSED. Do you get that?

I put crusaded in their to be sarcastic.:rolleyes:

No shit, Sherlock? Well guess what? I refuted the living crap out of your limp assertion for sheer entertainment. Using the word "crusade" when claiming someone's got an anti-religious bent is a "duh" kind of sarcasm, but we go to debate with the mind we have, not the mind we want. You made a patently false claim and your sub-sarcastic use of one word is all you've got to come back with? Really?

uh huh, riiight.

Am I incorrect?

And what about the rights of the victim?

What about them? The rights of the victim, as far as a private accused go, are irrelevant.

The accused is a private person, it is not the government. The constitution binds the actions of the government and is the supreme law of the land.

It doesn't matter what I do. It doesn't matter how heinous my actions. It doesn't matter how terrible my deeds are. I am an american citizen. And I have the same rights as every other american citizen. And if the government puts me on trial, the government is bound by the supreme law of the land.


And doesnt the jury need all the facts to decide a case fairly?

Absolutly, and it is the job of the police to gather those facts. Those police, however, are agents of the government and as such are bound by the supreme law of the nation. The rest of your nonsense is nonsensical appeal to the emotions, and is not really relevant.

No matter what I do the government is required to follow the constitution. It can not do otherwise. The government can not be allowed to violate those restrictions that are placed upon it. The government can not search my home without a warrant adequately describing the place to be searched. That's in the constitution. If the warrant does not adequately describe my home, then the government can't legally search it. If they search it anyway, that's illegal.

And if the government breaks the law they can not be allowed to use it. I don't care if I'm the worse madman than hitler. The constitution is more important than any one person. And the government can not be allowed to break the law without consequences. Because even though you claim to not advocate gestapoesq stormtroopers, the only thing that keeps us from that is the strong line in the sand that tells the government DO NOT CROSS.

The "absurd reasons" you bemoan so much are instances when the government broke the law. And I find nothing absurd at all about not allowing the government to use evidence the obtained llegally

If the search warrant isn't issued correctly and the prosecutor makes a case, then it's the defense's JOB, and DUTY to point that out. It's how we make sure the laws about the INCREDIBLE amount of authority we WILLINGLY give to the police are NOT ABUSED. Do you get that?

Yes. But due process does not equal the right to privacy.

Am I incorrect?

you argue that a group's rights should be restricted because they advocate restriction of rights.

I could drive a truck through the hole in that logic.

you argue that a group's rights should be restricted because they advocate restriction of rights.

I could drive a truck through the hole in that logic.

Not so much because they want to restrict rights, they just practice Incorrect Thought. Only people that practice Correct Thought should have rights.

Yes. But due process does not equal the right to privacy.

sure it does. In fact, it equals a whole lot more. Substantive due process means equitable treatment under the law, protected by those things that are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, which includes privacy.

Not so much because they want to restrict rights, they just practice Incorrect Thought. Only people that practice Correct Thought should have rights.

you must be shitting me. You're parodying 1984 or something like that right?

you argue that a group's rights should be restricted because they advocate restriction of rights.

I could drive a truck through the hole in that logic.

Well, it would work for me for the Muslim Brotherhood, and any organization that supports them. See this link:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/091707dnmetbrotherhood.35ce2b6.html

you must be shitting me. You're parodying 1984 or something like that right?

People that practice Incorrect Thought are a danger to those that practice Correct Thought, and steps should be taken to remove those that practice Incorrect Thought from society. Removal of civil rights is a step in the Correct direction.

People that practice Incorrect Thought are a danger to those that practice Correct Thought, and steps should be taken to remove those that practice Incorrect Thought from society. Removal of civil rights is a step in the Correct direction.

hey man, um...can I have some of that shit?

hey man, um...can I have some of that shit?


You already posess Correct Thought. You are no threat to Society.

They shouldn't. Some people don't deserve civil rights.

Rights have nothing to do with what people deserve. Rights aren't things that people have, and that bit of linguistic laziness is creating generations of self-righteous assholes.

Rights have nothing to do with what individuals are allowed to do. They're about what societies are allowed to do to people. It's not about whether or not Larry Craig should be allowed to withdraw a guilty plea that may not represent the facts, or whether NAMBLA should be allowed to say that they think pederasty is a good thing, or Rush Limbaugh should be allowed to keep his medical records private.

It's about whether or not the courts are right to refuse to here a grievance, which is their function. Or if the government has the authority to prohibit a group from stating their beliefs. Or if they should be allowed to demand access to patients medical records because they police claim greater knowledge of how much pain relief a patient needs than a doctor.

Rights apply to everyone. That's what makes them rights, not privileges.

Rights have nothing to do with what people deserve. Rights aren't things that people have, and that bit of linguistic laziness is creating generations of self-righteous assholes.

Rights have nothing to do with what individuals are allowed to do. They're about what societies are allowed to do to people. It's not about whether or not Larry Craig should be allowed to withdraw a guilty plea that may not represent the facts, or whether NAMBLA should be allowed to say that they think pederasty is a good thing, or Rush Limbaugh should be allowed to keep his medical records private.

It's about whether or not the courts are right to refuse to here a grievance, which is their function. Or if the government has the authority to prohibit a group from stating their beliefs. Or if they should be allowed to demand access to patients medical records because they police claim greater knowledge of how much pain relief a patient needs than a doctor.

Rights apply to everyone. That's what makes them rights, not privileges.

Rights should not apply to people that practice Incorrect Thought. They are not People. They are animals.

hey man, um...can I have some of that shit?

Here you go. (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9780451524935&itm=1)

you must be shitting me. You're parodying 1984 or something like that right?

Crimethink doubleplusungood. Selfref Minitruth for goodthink.

Rights should not apply to people that practice Incorrect Thought. They are not People. They are animals.

As soon as you establish a precedent defining away the rights of one person; you are establishing a precedent that can be used to define away your own rights.

As soon as you establish a precedent defining away the rights of one person; you are establishing a precedent that can be used to define away your own rights.

Rights of people that practice Correct Thought are inviolable. Rights of animals that practice Incorrect Thought are nonexistant.

Rights of people that practice Correct Thought are inviolable. Rights of animals that practice Incorrect Thought are nonexistant.

And what happens when you are defined as practicing "incorrect thought"? You just established the legal precedent to revoke your own rights...

They shouldn't. Some people don't deserve civil rights.

You can give yours up now. We'll wait.

and he certainly doesnt reach across himself with his left hand to reach up under the stall divider. there just isnt anything innocent about that.

"Dude, pass some toilet paper, this stall's out?"

Except that all he was caught doing was making a hand gesture and maybe bumping someone's foot. I've made incidental contact in sardine-like restroom stalls a few times in my life. I've never been arrested for it. I'm not a Craig supporter, but this whole thing is crap.
It wasn't just bumping his foot though.
The policeman was there because there'd been numerous reports/complaints about men having sex in the public lavatories (which is - public sex - an illegal act).
So the police did what they're meant to do: Go and investigate and, if necessary, arrest.

Craig didn't just 'accidently' bump the cop's foot.
He repeatedly nudged it (which is a way of asking, "you up for it?"). The cop nudged back (which isn't entrapment, because Craig initiated the actions). Craig then reached under the divider and waved his hand, which indicates definite interest - either as a, "come into my stall I'm ready" or, "stick your junk in my hand, I want to cope a feel".
He also used his hand with his wedding band on it, which itself is another gay bathroom sex turn-on but that's beside the point. What is the point is that Craig's actions weren't incidental. It was a series of actions that is well-known as meaning the guy wants to have sex.
If it walks like a duck etc etc.

His explanations are laughable to say the least.
"I squat like a sumo wrestler when I take a dump". ah...okay.
Let me guess, you were humming Britney Spear's new song, hence the foot tapping?
Oh, and of course: you're a tidy American and always pick toilet paper up off the floor of public restrooms ("Oh! Another one for my collection!") - even when said paper is another man's cubicle.
yep, that explains everything.

From what I understand, the ACLU ain't defending him against entrapment per se. They saying he might not have wanted public sex. He was arrested before he had the chance to say where he wanted to do it. For all we know, he might have had a room booked in a motel nearby.

"Dude, pass some toilet paper, this stall's out?"
Except he never said anything when he reached under. One would think that a man in a public toilet needing toilet paper would knock on the divider and call out, not just waggle his hand under the divider.
Occam's razor and all dat.

You can give yours up now. We'll wait.


No no. You see, people that practice Correct Thought have inviolable rights. "People" that do not practice Correct Thought (ie, Incorrect Thought) have no rights to begin with, because they are not people.

No no. You see, people that practice Correct Thought have inviolable rights. "People" that do not practice Correct Thought (ie, Incorrect Thought) have no rights to begin with, because they are not people.

Oh, that is exactly what's being said by Kat.

Luckily, since we do not believe in violable rights, we will not insist that you give up your rights at this point, even though you're practicing incorrect thought from our perspective.

See, as soon as you start defining "people" based upon the status or direction of their "thoughts", based further upon some arbitrary consensus as to what is or is not "correct" thought. You establish a system that can determine that you yourself are no longer a person (nor in possession of rights). You establish a framework that is capable of destroying your own rights.... To protect yourself from oppression; you must also protect those who exercise thoughts different than (or even in opposition to) your own from oppression.

Republicans.

You can't be serious. PLEASE tell me you're joking. Republicans are just as deserving of civil rights as anyone else.

"Dude, pass some toilet paper, this stall's out?"

with the hand farther away from the divider?

You can't be serious. PLEASE tell me you're joking. Republicans are just as deserving of civil rights as anyone else.

Actually, given their track record on attempting to bereave others of theirs, i think they should have to try little bit harder.

Because the're evil and wrong and practice Incorrect Thought.

No, YOU are evil and wrong and practice "incorrect thought". :upyours:

You can't be serious. PLEASE tell me you're joking. Republicans are just as deserving of civil rights as anyone else.

They are not, because they practice Incorrect Thought.

Rights should not apply to people that practice Incorrect Thought. They are not People. They are animals.

All humans are animals

But you sound kind of like Bene Gesserit from Dune

Actually, given their track record on attempting to bereave others of theirs, i think they should have to try little bit harder.

Well, be that as it may, they don't deserve to have their rights taken away just because they disagree with The South Islands and his/her opinion of "correct" and "incorrect" thought. I believe that whatever The South Islands would do to Republicans if s/he had the wherewithal, it should be done to him/her if s/he ever actually DOES it.

All humans are animals

But you sound kind of like Bene Gesserit from Dune

Physiologically, yes. But mentally, they are uncomparible.

And yet people who assume they are the ones with "correct" thought get to choose what "correct thought" is :rolleyes:

Of course. It's obvious what people possess Correct Thought and the "people" who do not.

They are not, because they practice Incorrect Thought.

Yes they ARE, because they are just as human as you are. In fact MORE so.

I believe in freedom of thought and of opinion, and that people should be allowed to believe what they want to believe, and think what they want to think, and it should not affect their civil rights one way or another. There should be no designations of "correct thought" or "incorrect thought".

Humans are humans, regardless of whether or not YOU think they practice "incorrect thought". And Republicans are humans, I don't care what you say. "Correct thought" and "incorrect thought" are absolutely irrelevant to the humanity of a human being, and to whether or not they have or deserve civil rights.

No no. You see, people that practice Correct Thought have inviolable rights. "People" that do not practice Correct Thought (ie, Incorrect Thought) have no rights to begin with, because they are not people.

And yet people who assume they are the ones with "correct" thought get to choose what "correct thought" is :rolleyes:

Yes they ARE, because they are just as human as you are. In fact MORE so.

Correct Thought is the hallmark of a real Human. Ergo, people practicing Incorrect Thought are, for lack of better terms, Animals stuck in Human bodies.

You sure you are not parodying dune?

Honest to God, I've never read the books. I saw the movie once when I was young. I thought it was pretty crappy.

Of course. It's obvious what people possess Correct Thought and the "people" who do not.

Really? what are your criteria for correct thought? and who makes thoes decisions?

Really? what are your criteria for correct thought? and who makes thoes decisions?

Correct Thought is itself. One with Correct Thought will recognize Correct Thought.

Honest to God, I've never read the books. I saw the movie once when I was young. I thought it was pretty crappy.

Well you sucked just about their whole "view" on humans almost verbatim out of the book. It was interesting as fiction which is where it belongs.

Physiologically, yes. But mentally, they are uncomparible.

You sure you are not parodying dune?

Well you sucked just about their whole "view" on humans almost verbatim out of the book. It was interesting as fiction which is where it belongs.

It is not fiction. It is fact.

Well, be that as it may, they don't deserve to have their rights taken away just because they disagree with The South Islands and his/her opinion of "correct" and "incorrect" thought. I believe that whatever The South Islands would do to Republicans if s/he had the wherewithal, it should be done to him/her if s/he ever actually DOES it.

I would say, at VERY least .... remedial constitution classes.

It is not fiction. It is fact.

Nope fiction ... and middle to old age fiction at that (for sci fi anyways)

I would say, at VERY least .... remedial constitution classes.

The Constitution of the United States was written by people who engaged in Incorrect Thought.

Nope fiction ... and middle to old age fiction at that (for sci fi anyways)

Well, whoever wrote Dune is obviously someone who possesses Correct Thought.

The Constitution of the United States was written by people who engaged in Incorrect Thought.Still better than republicans, who don't engage in thought, persay, so much as hyperreactivity.
As a party, at least.
Individually they may have some brain cells.

Well, whoever wrote Dune is obviously someone who possesses Correct Thought.

You are possibly right Herbert showed throughout the book how wrong and self centered the Bene Gesserit's view on what is or is not "human" (same as yours) is and how it limited their view on reality and possibilities.

Nevermind then. He did not possess Correct Thought. he possessed Incorrect Thought.

Maybe ... it is fiction same as "correct though" or "incorrect thought". Pretty good entertainment

You are possibly right Herbert showed throughout the book how wrong and self centered the Bene Gesserit's view on what is or is not "human" (same as yours) is and how it limited their view on reality and possibilities.

Nevermind then. He did not possess Correct Thought. He possessed Incorrect Thought.

No. Correct Thought and Incorrect Thought are real. One must just look outside to see examples of both.

I see harmful and non harmful actions but not necessarily thought ... lots more grays in there.

Maybe ... it is fiction same as "correct though" or "incorrect thought". Pretty good entertainment

No. Correct Thought and Incorrect Thought are real. One must just look outside to see examples of both.

I see harmful and non harmful actions but not necessarily thought ... lots more grays in there.

There are no Greys. There is Correct Thought and Incorrect Thought. There is no between.

There are no Greys.

http://a248.e.akamai.net/f/248/5462/2h/images.gamezone.com/screens/25/8/68/s25868_XB_27.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/capitolHill/8167/hibred.jpg
http://www.karlaturner.org/articles/Crystalinks_abduction_files/grayscars.jpg
http://planetsmilies.net/alien-smiley-126.gif (http://planetsmilies.net)

There are no Greys. There is Correct Thought and Incorrect Thought. There is no between.

Saying it does not make it true.

Me saying it does not. It is inherently true.

I will believe that when it is proven as it goes against my experience of the world. That and it being a ripoff of a well known piece of fiction at least in part makes me not take your word on it at face value.

Saying it does not make it true.

Me saying it does not. It is inherently true.

I will believe that when it is proven as it goes against my experience of the world. That and it being a ripoff of a well known piece of fiction at least in part makes me not take your word on it at face value.

Honestly, I never read the book! Really!

God damnit, this affront to the English language can stand no further.

It's HYPOCRISY. You're BRITISH, for Christ's sake!

Meh I'm also DYSLEXIC for christ sake!:D

ACLU defends anyone who's rights they deem violated. Regardless of their status.

Okay so which of his rights have been violated then?

Correct Thought is itself. One with Correct Thought will recognize Correct Thought.

All around the Mulberry Bush.....

Talk about circular reasoning....

Is no thought worse than incorrect thought?

What the fuck is going on in here? -_-

You sure you are not parodying dune?

While the Bene Gesserit did have a test for determining who was human and who was not (the gom jabbar), this did not apply to the idea of civil rights. The Bene Gesserit politic was much more relative and contextual than that. South Islands is definitely not parodying Dune. The closest thing we have to an oppresive culture like that in the Dune universe would be the Tleilaxu, and they are far more complicated than that.

Best Dune reference ever. (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=461)

You are possibly right Herbert showed throughout the book how wrong and self centered the Bene Gesserit's view on what is or is not "human" (same as yours) is and how it limited their view on reality and possibilities.

Indeed. It was one of the major themes running through the last three books in the series. It is*decidedly unfortunate that the new Dune novels are completely lacking in the political and social thought of Frank Herbert.

On topic:

I think that when you look at Cat-Tribe's posts that show the relevant facts and compare them to the stories in the press, you see how the media are confusing different elements. If the amicus brief is actually a separate issue from Craigs attempt to withdraw his guilty plea, then why does the focus seem to be on the ACLU defending Craig, as that would not actually be the case?

I think Murayvets is right that Craig is simply trying to use this to get away iwth it all, and the media confusion is caused by the spin being put out by the Craig team.

Politics as usual.

Epic threadjack, TSI. Not particularly creative, but epic.

Though it was effectively over once Sentije brought the neocon boilerplate into the discussion.

I do my best.

Epic threadjack, TSI. Not particularly creative, but epic.

Though it was effectively over once Sentije brought the neocon boilerplate into the discussion.

What the fuck is going on in here? -_-

TSI fancies himself an Orwellian automaton.

Meanwhile, on topic, the fact that Craig pled guilty and the court accepted the plea and got on with life means that the matter, for my taste, is done. To now decide he wants to rescind his plea after the court is done is an exceptional request, which demands exceptional circumstances...and Craig's argument doesn't come close.

Meh I'm also DYSLEXIC for christ sake!:D

Now, if you were brown, I'd be cracking a Singh joke right about now. :D

I do my best.

*applauds*