Not Guilty?
POSTED BY: Hero
UPDATED: Thursday, July 24, 2025 19:55
VIEWED: 5156
PAGE 3 of 4
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
By making the Clinton analogy you are comparing apples to oranges. By no measure did Senator Craig commit a crime (if for no other reason then the Constitution bars any arrest in this sort of case) and what he did was in an aiport restroom where he has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Oh, please! Your defense of any conservative wrong-doing is pathetic.
It's only "not a crime" on a technicality. If you look at the morality of the situation - which guys like Craig like to swing like a goddamned battle-axe whenever they see an opproptunity - it was a violation of the moral code he claims to live by. He deserves to be called out on that hipocracy.
And there is a minor expectation for privacy in a public restroom, which last I heard, did not include propositioning sex in said public place.
Fuckin' appologists.....
At least you'r consistent.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
He's forfeited his right to hide behind his own right to privacy, in my opinion.
I disagree. There are limitations to a right to privacy. It is generally accepted that a right to privacy exists when there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
I would respectfully put forward that the Senator's right to privacy ended when his actions invaded another person's reasonable expectation of privacy.
Also, the term "breach of the peace" is a vaguely defined construct (I suspect deliberately made so). By tradition, speeding is not considered 'breach of the peace", so Congressmen are not cited for speeding to and from sessions. I would suggest that breaching the peace could be defined as taking action not directly related to getting to or from session that could be interpreted as criminal. If Senator Craig had stopped and robbed a Starbuck's on the way back from D.C., the reasonable expectation would be that he should be arrested. It would be considered breaching the peace, and I would argue the same applies here.
Edit: Looking over my post, I realize that robbery is a felony, and already addressed by the Constitutional article, so it is a poor example. I also found this definition of the term on the web site thefreedictionary.com :
breach of the peace - any act of molesting, interrupting, hindering, agitating, or arousing from a state of repose or otherwise depriving inhabitants of the peace and quiet to which they are entitled.
If this is the commonly held legal definition (not sure by any means), then I would have to say Senator Craig did in fact breach the peace in the restroom, and may be legally held accountable.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
And there is a minor expectation for privacy in a public restroom, which last I heard, did not include propositioning sex in said public place.
The Supreme Court has spoken on the issue of privacy in public restrooms, so its hardly minor.
And propositioning sex between adults in not illegal anywhere. It may be unwelcome, but not illegal. Actual sex in public is illegal, offering money for sex is illegal, exposing oneself is illegal, there's lots of potential illegal activities. Senator Craig was not accused of any of those things.
I wont disagree with your notion that Senator Craig's record on family values needs to be examined in light of this activity. We should schedule that debate right after we discuss Senator Bird's (D, WVa) clan membership, Senator Kennedy's (D, MA) drinking and driving, and Sen. David Vitter's (R, LA) "escort".
And a Constitutional protection against arrest is hardly a technicality, in fact it serves a very important purpose, both now and historically (especially given an evenly divided Senate). Although I suppose that explains why you've not been jailed for saying things I don't like. Your hiding behind a technicality...free speech.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
How can any man not be just totally turned on at the sight & sounds of another man taking a dump? I certainly want my Congressmen having gay sex in restrooms. America is a Gay Country now..."My Country tis of thee, sweet land of homosexuality, of thee I thing."
OK, I may be a bit off topic, but this touches on something that has been making me absolutely nuts and I have to have my rant.
Getting a blow job in a bathroom stall is *not* the gay lifestyle. That's like saying that cheating on your spouse is the married lifestyle. What Craig tried to do - seedy anonymous sex - is the lifestyle of person who lives in denial of his own urges. That's not the basis of gay, that's the basis of messed up in the head.
The real issue behind all this is not breaking one silly little law, it's that Craig has been socially conversative and anti-gay because his own experiences with homosexuality have been shameful and disgusting, and he's not able to see that this is not universal. This moron, and several other right-wing conservative nut jobs who have also been found out in the past few years, think they need to make laws to control the lives of other people just because they themselves are so f**ked up.
Leave the healthy happy gay folks alone and go get yourself a therapist, Senator Craig. Mark Foley. Ted Haggert. Jim West.
/rant
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Although I suppose that explains why you've not been jailed for saying things I don't like. Your hiding behind a technicality...free speech.
H
Another moronic argument. What I'm saying isn't illegal except when on the way to work.
I've also never plead guily, and then backpedaled...
And as for your (sooooo old) quip over Kennedy - when was the last time he publicly critisized someone for their drinking? He may be a dick, but he's not the hipocrite Craig is.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
The real issue behind all this is not breaking one silly little law, it's that Craig has been socially conversative and anti-gay because his own experiences with homosexuality have been shameful and disgusting, and he's not able to see that this is not universal. This moron, and several other right-wing conservative nut jobs who have also been found out in the past few years, think they need to make laws to control the lives of other people just because they themselves are so f**ked up.
Well said!
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Getting a blow job in a bathroom stall is *not* the gay lifestyle. That's like saying that cheating on your spouse is the married lifestyle. What Craig tried to do - seedy anonymous sex - is the lifestyle of person who lives in denial of his own urges. That's not the basis of gay, that's the basis of messed up in the head.
I note for the record that if you eliminate the whole gay thing, your statement about "seedy abonymous sex" is actually something a lot of men and women in America would agree with (especially if between the ages of 15 and 40 and on Friday and Saturday nights).
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Byrd harkens back from the time when republicans were dems. I'm sure the guys he runs against are so much better in that area. I'm also sure that state is a bastion of liberal virtue.
As to Kennedy's drinking and driving - I'm not sure he's ever promoted a hard line of one strike and your out politics on such issues. He is, after all, a liberal. In cases where people are not actively trying to promote absolute intolerance of mistakes in this world - punishment over rehabilitation - I leave it up to law enforcement to do their job, and then I accept the judgement, within reason.
I don't know what happened at chappaquitik?, but he was never prosecuted. even handed justcie? Probably not entirely. This is america, and you get the justice you pay for, but he is not now, nor was he ever actively trying to send people up the river for every mistake they make, even tragic mistakes.
which leaves room for redemption, both for them, and for him. My problem is not as much with people who make disasterous mistakes. Many have been a party to those, including Laura Bush, who was also not prosecuted.
My problem is with politicians that want to demonize and punish, when they themselves don't even choose to practice the code that they preach. George W. would be another goody there. He's for a hard-line on drugs, but we know pretty credibly, that he probably did cocaine.. talk about redemption...the man was able to clean his act up...supposedly...and become the President of the United States. Not bad for a coke-head.
.............
As to Clinton in the White HOuse...
half of what you brought up was only relevent because they decided to invade his privacy and get to the bottom of his sex scandal with of all things, a hearing.
I have heard the suppordinate thing brought up before, and it is valid, if there was any kind of coercion, or pressure. I think Lewinsky has made it clear she didn't feel any. I'd take her word for that. the money she could have sued for...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
He was not charged with sex in public. Its not against the law to ask someone for sex, to bump someone's foot, to ask for a date, etc. He is alleged to have been looking in the stalls to see if it was occupied, bumping his foot and reaching under the stall. None of that is illegal.
I'm as homophobic as the next guy, but this aint illegal.
Ah, you've touched on one of the broader issues that this case spotlights. The sting that Senator Craig walked into was not directed at him, was not a novel approach used only by that particular agency and was not an approach that is a recent tactic. So if you think that the tactic was wrong in this instance then you have to ask yourself if the thousands of applications of this very same tactic countrywide over the past few decades are also wrong. How many men have pled guilty to behavior identical to Senator Craig's? Behavior that you do not consider illegal.
So why would people plead guilty? Craig's vehement denial that he is gay provides the answer. For people who are so invested in denying that they are who they are, who are so filled with self-loathing about their own sexuality that it is preferable to engage in anonymous risky public bathroom sexual acts rather than simply come out of the closet, who may even be part of the decision making process that legislates the demonizing of others like themselves, the last thing in the world they want is a public trial.
As long as we live in a culture where fighting against teh gay is a viable political strategy (yes, I'm looking at you, Republican Party, and the crass exploitation of homophobia) we will have men who live in the closet. As long as we have men living in the closet this tearoom trade will continue.
Or - after rereading some of the posts I glossed over - what mal4prez said.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pirate News:
Damn, I have to agree with Hero.
Except Craig should be summarily executed for treason at Gitmo, for voting for amnesty for illegal aliens.
Yep & Yep...
I can't believe it myself. I didn't find one single thing Hero said to be out of wack with my ideas.
This entire Craig scenario is complete and utter bullshit. Instead of going after our law breaking public officals and making them pay for their crimes against the people they are supposed to be serving, they scapegoat this man and dish out some sensationalistic bullshit for us sheep to talk about all week while the criminals can keep doing criminal things behind the scenes. It's misdirection that would make Houdini proud, pure and simple.
I wonder what bullshit they'll try to feed us next week. Anybody want to place bets on which party the newest scapegoat will be from and what level of government we're talking about?
Oh... wait.... I forgot. We're all going to be bashing Britney Spears for how fat and out of shape she's gotten for at least a week now. That poor girl. Everybody's turned on her. I saw that and she didn't look bad at all. Maybe a little less than enthused, but certainly not fat or out of shape. It's a wonder why all these thirteen year old girls are bulemic and aneorexic, and Brook Shields is telling new moms to pop pills.
Here's a good idea.... everybody turn off your damn TV and don't read the paper or the news on the internet. They haven't figured out a way to remotely implant thoughts in our heads yet, so if we all do this we can all go back to being relatively sane again.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME