I am a bit perplexed as to what exactly Larry Craig did that was illegal. I fully understand that it is fun gossip and great fodder to show the hypocrisy of the Republican Party. You Can read the actual reports here: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/28/craig.arrest/index.html
I would be concerned as to the peeping allegation, provided it is true. The rest of the finger wagging, foot tapping, rubbing and all don't seem to add up to too much in my mind. The recent tapes show that there clearly was a dispute as to what actually happened. What I have read and heard do not amount to conduct that will tend to provoke an assault or breach of the peace. I see worse and have been exposed to worse in almost any bar/nightclub I have been in.
What I see is a police officer targeting homosexuals for what appears solicitation of consensual sex. Again I see worse with heterosexuals in my favorite bar every weekend. I do not see any allegation of prostitution. What is the crime?
As far as the fact he plead guilty - most people would if they thought it would avoid having everyone know their business. Assuming Larry Craig is in fact gay and in the closest - of course he would plead guilty to keep his sexual orientation a secret. Many of people arrested for solicitation of a prostitute do the same thing - plea to avoid the embarrassment.
7 comments:
Are you serious?
The crime -- whatever you want to call it -- is that some people just want to use the bathroom without having to be cconfronted by, or tolerate sex in the neighboring stall.
That's it.
There is no allegation that ANYONE was having sex in the bathroom or any where in the airport proper.
You are making that leap. I can add tons of facts to story to make it more interesting but the facts as recorded by the officer who made the arrest does not support the idea that there was sex in the bathroom.
But doesn't it support the idea that sex was solicited in the bathroom? And isn't that something some of us want to avoid?
I'm not trying to be a bitch. Just asking questions.
Amy
I am not sure if there is a law anywhere that prevents solicitation of sex in and of itself.
The statute Craig was arrested under makes one of the elements conduct that will tend to provoke an assault or breach of the peace. The audio tape of the inerview gives me serious pause as to what actaully happened.
To answer the question - no I do not want to be solicited for sex - hetero or other wise while in the bathroom. Honestly I dont want to be hit up for sex anywhere unless I am in the mood for it. I have been hit on in court and I find that offensive, but yet it is not illegal.
My original post was what is illegal about it, not what is offensive.
I do not mind question and debate is always encouraged. At least I know someone hs read this.
I don't think the legality is the crux of the issue--the hypocricy is. Craig has consistenly voted against gay rights, and it's certainly inverse to the "family values" banner the Republican Party likes to wrap around themselves. THAT'S the issue. You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone inside the beltway who would condone or defend him.
I don't think anyone's laboring under the illusion that it was all a big misunderstanding, that he really was "reaching for a piece of paper." If that were true, wouldn't he challenge the charge and come out swinging?
A misdemeanor rarely ruins a career. But this one had an especially high "Ick" factor, and the fact that he pleaded guilty to cover it up suggests he knew how it would play.
As for all the gossip and late-night talk show jokes: WHO COULD RESIST??? :)
The political fallout is all about the hypocricy of the republican party and this one guy in particular. The gay aspects as well as the lurid details of the arrest is what has fueled it. After all Mark Vitter did in fact break the law - as far as i know prostitution is in fact illegal in D.C.
The simple fact is that Craig has gotten cuaght up in something I am not certain is actaully illegal. I do not have mych sympathy for the outcome in his case, which makes me a bit of a hypocrit myself.
My concern is this - from what I have read, a local airport police agency has decided to run "stings" against people who are very unlikely to defend themselves out of embarrassment and are more likely than not travelling making much more likely that a guilty pleas will be entered.
The tapes I have heard and reports/ warrants are laughable as to if there even was a crime. Looks like targeted harrasment.
As far as:
I don't think anyone's laboring under the illusion that it was all a big misunderstanding, that he really was "reaching for a piece of paper." If that were true, wouldn't he challenge the charge and come out swinging?
If he were out of the closet sure. But this person has been investigated to hell and back by his local paper for being gay. To fight it would have clearly drwan attention to him, The hope that a quick guilty plea will make things go away is a common mistake. I can understand that even if he did not do it - a plea looked pretty good at the time.
A lot of misdemeanor charges count on embarrassment - public drunk, solicatation for sex for money, nudity, etc. Plea quick and no one knows.
In the end he got what some would see as justice in a karma kinda way.
As far as the actual charge goes, you're absolutely right...it's tenuous at best. That bathroom must've been pretty notorious to attract a sting operation like that.
Again, the Ick Factor. I don't care that it revolved around gay sex. It's the strangers-in-a-public-bathroom part of it that makes my skin crawl. A public bathroom would be about the LAST place I'd want to shed any more clothing for any longer than is absolutly necessary, you know? Could you GET any seedier?
Unfortunately, it speaks to the enduring homophobia in politics that for most people, it's more about the gay thing.
Post a Comment