What did he do wrong?

[Trevorum]

I guess I have a different take on this. I don't know what is legal or illegal in Minneapolis. However, that's not what LongHaul asked. He asked, "What did he do wrong,?" In my view what Craig did that is immoral ("wrong") was to habitually lie to himself, habitually lie to his family and to his constituency, and repeatedly abuse his position of power in an attempt to obscure and/or excuse his deep secret.(This message has been edited by Trevorum)

[John-in-KC]

Trev,

 

You and I are pretty close to "violent agreement here."

 

Above and beyond that, IF you plead, THEN you accept the consequences.

 

Or... does personal responsibility for yourself at the bar of justice not matter anymore?

[BrentAllen]

Trev,

Maybe the Senator was caught in a conundrum - maybe he is a habitual liar as well as a covert homosexual. You say his lying is immoral, but I would say his (alleged) homosexual behavior is immoral. I would applaud him for denying any homosexual tendencies he had, not chastise him for lying to himself. Should a pedophile just accept his problem and act it out, instead of fighting it? [note: I am not saying homosexuals are pedophiles. I use this comparison because I have been informed these behaviors are not made by choice]

 

habitual: inherent in an individual.

inherent: belonging by nature or settled habit.

[packsaddle]

There are so many things about this that cause me to wonder what is REALLY going on here. This is more than Republicans eating another of their own. No, it seems more like Republicans writhing in agony over a conundrum of their own making. And what was going on for more than two months since the arrest?

 

On the surface, I'm not certain that Craig was doing something that should be considered illegal, if he in fact did anything at all. I'm not even certain that he was initially guilty of what he pled to. He certainly pled in order to try to escape precisely the treatment he's getting right now. And if he is gay, he certainly is guilty of profound hypocrisy. If that was illegal, we'd be electing a lot of new political leaders.

I think I understand Trevorum's intent and I tend to agree with it. There are so many deceptions embedded in this. I listened tonight to the recording made by the officer during the arrest. What I heard was a senator who was caught in a snare and frightened at his future prospects, trying desperately to avoid the web of the law when he was actually caught by the web of his own deceptions. If only he could have been open and honest about his sexuality. A life of lies. This is a lesson for everyone. And in our zeal to condemn this guy, we may not learn from it.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[GernBlansten]

Those republicans who want Craig to resign sure didn't line up to see Vitter resign. I wonder if its all because the gov of Idaho is republican and will replace him with a republican and the gov of Louisiana is a dem and would replace Vitter with a dem. Who plays politics? EH?

[Gunny2862]

Gern, it occurs to me that although the incident involves a politician that is a rather thin attempt to politicize the event.

 

If that is your goal then why not just make the real political hay that is there out of finding the hypocrisy in two republicans who espouse "Family Values" being involved in "Family Values" scandals instead of going for the cheap shot you were working?

 

I'm a schlub at this but I expect better arguments from you. (This message has been edited by Gunny2862)

[Lisabob]

In connection with a piece about the Republican party platform (not about Craig), Newsweek contributor Anna Quindlen recently wrote the following:

 

"If you run on family values, your values and your family will be subject to scrutiny. Be careful what you wish for: it might get you."

 

I'd have to say that seems to be happening a lot lately, and the Craig story is just one more example.

[packsaddle]

Lisabob, I agree. And fun though it is to watch them stumbling around like a scene from 'Night of the Living Dead', all this political stuff and the personal attacks do nothing but detract from meaningful discussion and debate about the questions that deserve serious attention.

[CalicoPenn]

May I pose a hypothetical question concerning whether this was right or wrong?

 

You're driving a number of Scouts up to Summer Camp, a 3 or so hour trip. You stop at a rest station along the way to stretch your legs and use the restroom. One of your Scouts comes up to you and says some guy looked at him through the stall door, got into the stall next to him, tapped his foot, moved his foot over to touch the Scouts and waved his hand under the stall (all things Mr. Craig has been accused of doing), Are you going to tell the Scout that the guy did nothing wrong or are you going to call the police because this guy is a pervert?

 

Craig was not entrapped - there was no contact between Craig and this officer before Craig entered the restroom (The officer states he had been sitting in the stall for five minutes before Craig entered the restroom). The officer didn't entice Craig, or make any suggestions that they should meet in a restroom for illicit activities (its the location - a public restroom - that makes the activity illicit - it isn't illicit in your own bedroom). The officer was conducting undercover work in a restroom based on complaints by the traveling public. He was aware of what these actions by Craig were meant - these actions have been used for ages to indicate certain - you get the picture. The officer knew what the patterns were because they are common throughout the country (Craig has not been the only one ever arrested in a men's room for this - and this same pattern occurs in all the other states, and in Canada too - not just Minneapolis). The police conduct these stings precisely because of the very actions made by Craig.

 

Calico

 

[John-in-KC]

I am being utterly pragmatic on this one.

 

Craig was arrested and charged with a crime. He was going to have a close encounter with our criminal justice system. At that point, he had three options:

- Plead not guilty, have a trial, and make the State convict him.

- Plead no contest.

- Plead guilty to some or all of the offenses (or their lesser includeds).

 

You, I, Beavah, Lisa, and BobWhite didn't plead out. MR CRAIG PLED and was thus CONVICTED. The last time I saw a friend encounter the criminal justice system, judges tend to make sure Guilty pleas are fully understood and accepted as "I'm guilty."

 

Mr Craig did not think folks weren't going to notice a criminal conviction of a US Senator, even for a misdemeanor offense? He's a member of the most exclusive club in America. He has an old World War II Carbon Arc searchlight blazing gazillions of candlepower into his home.

 

He's whining because he was noticed.

 

Why can't Mr Craig just shut up and take the punishment he pled to?

 

And for the record, I am conservative and Republican by registration.

 

EDIT: As of 1049 Central Time Friday Aug 31, Forbes Magazine is reporting on Republican Senatorial leadership pressure for Mr Craig to resign his seat. Isn't Google News wonderful?(This message has been edited by John-in-KC)

[OldGreyEagle]

Wasnt George Michael arrested for the same thing? In 1998 he was fined $810 and 80 hours of community service. Now, of course that was in California, but how different could the punishements be? I am sure I will find out

 

Whenever a person or an organization espouses values and tries to live them, it always creates controversey when that organization fails. The Catholic Church with its shuffling around of pedophiliac clergy and the BSA with its Writer of Youth Protection a child porn fanatic. But, does that make the principles of the organization null and void? Does the impropriety of an individual(s) besmirch the entire organization? Can I say because a judge in my state has been convicted of bribery, that I dont have to respect any decision ruled on by that judge? If state legislators pass an illegal pay increase, do I get to ignore the associated tax increase? If I take the position that I will only follow prefection, I set myself up to be awfully disappointed.

[LongHaul]

Calico,

         First, you bet Im calling the cops IF THE GUY IS AN ADULT. How about if it was another scout? Billy comes up to you and says Tommy was doing this and that Billy thought it was strange enough to report. Do you call the cops on Tommy? Has the crime become different? How about if youre a Venturing Leader and youre taking both males and females up to camp. Two of your female scouts come up to you and report that while in the food court a guy, their same age, came up to them and asked them if they wanted to accompany him to his home for a sexual encounter. Do you call the police? Would you stick around to file charges and show up in court? Would you actually expect a conviction?

       The officer says he was in the stall 5 minutes before Craig entered the bathroom. Sitting on the can with his pants around his ankles? Craig reportedly looked at the officer through the crack in the door. Did Craig observe a man sitting in the stall still buckled and zipped? Craig was arrested for committing actions not acts what did the officers actions convey? If I am using a public rest room and you touch my foot with your foot from the next stall you gotta be laying on the floor! Unless of course you have a joint about half way up your calf. I want to how they wrote a law that says flashing hand signs and playing footsees is a crime.

LongHaul

[John-in-KC]

Just for clarity,

 

I have no value judgment on Mr Craig or his actions up to the moment he stepped to the Bar of Justice. I do have a value judgment on his actions and comments following saying three words to his Judge: "Guilty, Your Honor."

 

 

 

John

[CalicoPenn]

Long Haul,

 

What if you don't know the Scout that Billy says did this? Maybe an older unknown Scout (17) to Billy's 13? If Tommy is a member of your unit and is known to be a prankster, I imagine most of us would pull him aside and ask what he was doing and tell him why it wasn't appropriate. If Billy doesn't know the Scout - I might very well be inclined to call the cops - this behavior is not appropriate.

 

Venture crew or not - if some guy the same age as the girls comes up to them in a food court and asks them out somewhere to hook up, it's not a crime. A 40 year old man doing the same - different story - I'm calling the cops. 16 year old local boy - I'm telling the kid to get lost. I'm calling the cops on some 40 year old guy approaching a male Scout in a food court asking the same question. But 16 year old local boy asking a 16 year old boy? No crime there (though rather bold and a bit stupid of the 16 year old asker).

 

As for hand signs - flip a police officer off and tell me how fast it takes for them to arrest you for disorderly conduct(the old catch-all for what is generally considered crimes against civility) and good luck with the free speech defense (I prefer the free speech argument but reality unfortunately gets in the way sometimes). Flashing hand signs in most high schools in the country is banned by law too (in most states that have locally elected school boards, those school boards are as much a law enacting body as is the local city government). It's done to try to prevent problems with gangs in schools.

 

When someone sitting to your left in a toilet stall manages to reach over and wave at you with their left hand you've got to be suspicious about their intentions. And you make the argument against Craig with your observation about how hard it would be to touch someone's foot with your own in a stall - imagine just how jointed Craigs leg must be for him to have managed, in a "wide stance with his pants around his ankles" to get his foot under the stall wall and into the officers stall. Unless those stalls are no wider than a standard toilet fixture, its very hard to do even without your pants at your ankles.

 

Craig would have been entrapped had the officer approached him out of the restroom and suggested a trip to the stalls (or even approached him while standing at a sink) - that's entrapment - that can be argued in court that the person never would have tried this if the officer hadn't suggested it first. The officer can sit on the toilet licking his lips and winking all he wants - as long as he doesn't say anything, or make first physical contact, or is performing an indecent act - it's not entrapment/inticement. It seems Craig knew exactly what he was doing, and has done it long enough to know exactly what to say when he was caught (it makes me wonder if he hasn't been caught before and learned a lesson from that experience).

 

Calico

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

I gave an URL for all of the police reports yesterday. Read 'em.