What did he do wrong?

[GernBlansten]

Well, that certainly explains Vitter.

[Hunt]

While Craig may try to claim constitutional immunity, from what I''ve read, it''s a long shot. I think it unlikely that a court would hold that even a Senator can commit criminal acts in an airport with impunity, just because he''s traveling back to Washington. I think I read that this issue has actually been addressed in court, and that the claim of immunity failed. I''ll see if I can look it up. I do think that if Craig manages to get his guilty plea withdrawn, he has a reasonable likelihood of prevailing at a jury trial, because the evidence is a bit murky, and is a he said/he said situation--a jury might well decide there is reasonable doubt that a crime was committed.

[GernBlansten]

I don''t think the provision was written to provide immunity to congressman while traveling. It was designed to keep the congressman from being jailed and held. It doesn''t say anything about bringing them to justice after the fact.

[eisely]

GernBlansten,

 

I concur with your interpretation. That provision in the constitution does not grant immunity from prosecution, merely immunity from arrest while traveling to and from sessions of the Congress.

[GaHillBilly]

I started skimming this post to gain a better understanding of the ''climate'' of this forum . . . and of the personality and positions of some of the frequent posters. Ironically, some of the information here relates pretty directly to a local situation here.

 

A nearby National Park is used frequently by both Boy Scouts and by participants in the "tearoom trade". (We''d taken to calling them ''back-enders'', combining a crude pun with a description of how they park their vehicles!) The park has numerous short trails, which my wife and I have been using for exercise for several years now. (She doesn''t mind, but I *HATE* walking on a track!) Because we walk almost every day, and at different times during the day, we have a pretty good handle on who uses the park. My problem is that I''m preparing to use it with Scouts in my son''s troop, to do the 5-mile hike, the plant and animal ID requirement, and numerous nature related MBs, etc.

 

At the entrance to these trails are small 2 - 5 car parking areas. On most days, between noon and twilight, many of these parking locations will have one or two ''back-enders'' present, either waiting in their car, loitering at the trail head, . . . or else out of sight.

 

 

====================================================================

----- Please, I''d rather not do a pro/con homo debate here! ------

----- But, so you''ll know where I''m coming from . . . -----

 

 

For the record (and NOT debate), I personally am fairly uncomfortable about encountering homosexuals. This has remained true, even though I''ve had several work relationships, and even a couple of friendships, with homosexuals, in varying degrees of ''outness''.

 

There are at least three sources of my discomfort. First, I was brought up in the Bible Belt. Second, I had a homosexual uncle who spent several months attempting to seduce me, when I was my younger son''s age (12). Fortunately, he was stopped before I understood what was going on, and before he''d made any clearly sexual advances. Third, I had some fairly unpleasant experiences while traveling in Europe during the 70''s hippie hitchhiker era. (No one had warned me that a young male tourist traveling alone might as well wear a neon sign, lettered "Find Fresh Meat Here!")

 

For these reasons and some others, I''m not prepared to accept that just now in the 21st century the historical association of homosexuality with pederasty has somehow been severed.

 

One further observation: I was fascinated by tjhammer''s explanation of the differences and tensions between the "old gay culture" and the "new gay culture", and by acco40''s post about Humphrey''s research. Both were very enlightening, and helped me understand some of the things we''ve observed, like why most of the ''back-enders'' seem to be nearer my age -- 53 -- than we would have expected.

 

 

--- And now, back to our regularly scheduled question: -----

====================================================================

 

 

 

Anyhow, the regular presence of these ''back-enders'' in these locations means that both the Scouts I''m working with AND their parents WILL encounter these guys. And THAT means I have some questions to answer.

 

 

+ What should I tell the parents?

 

My son knows exactly who these guys are, but the informational approach we take to such topics in my family is MUCH more open than what is typical in this community. My sister, for example, is stunned at the things we talk about openly, even though our beliefs about what people should *DO* aren''t much different than hers.

 

I gather that ''sex education'' is a somewhat verboten topic both in the BSA, all the child safety stuff notwithstanding.

 

 

+ What should I tell the kids?

 

 

+ How should I deal with the risk that the kids might see something they shouldn''t?

 

For the record, I think the risk is quite small. The ''back-enders'' have their little side trails, near the parking areas, and off the main trail. We know where those trails are, and where they go, and can pretty much avoid them. Ironically, after covering over 2,000 miles by foot, the one time my wife and I have seen public sex in the park it was of the heterosexual flavor, and the couple involved was much younger than the ''back-enders''. But, the ''back-enders'' actual frequency of ''activity'' is apparently greater than that of the recreational hetero couples. So, the risk is not minuscule.

 

 

+ How great is the risk that a ''back-ender'' would actively approach a Scout?

 

-- Please answer ONLY if you have factual information, from personal experience, RELIABLE testimony, or other RELIABLE sources! --

 

(For the record, I take that the risk is somewhat high. Over the past 15 years, there''ve been 2 or 3 arrests of an older male for unwanted sexual contact (attempted or actual) at the restroom at a public beach of a nearby lake. And, I''ve been personally told by several police officers, who were taking the same aikido class I was, that the problems were greater than what was reported.)

 

 

All responses appreciated.

 

GaHillBilly

 

(If it''s more appropriate, I''d be happy for my question to be editorially moved to a new thread. It''s just that it appeared that some of the posters following this thread would be able to help.)

[packsaddle]

Heh, heh, it''s been my experience that several vehicles disgorging a bunch of boys tends to make all sorts of wildlife suddenly scarce. If anyone is there seeking a discreet place, homo or hetero, they''ll probably leave in disgust, along with the other large mammals and most of the birds. Chances are the parents are already aware of this but it''s worth mentioning just so they''ll know. I''d tell them discreetly.

[eisely]

Responding to GaHillBllly:

 

If the place is as well known as you say for the "tearoom trade", chances are the police are already aware of it. If you talked to the police ahead of time they might even schedule a visit to the park at the same time. That should help alleviate any worries since those folks would probably scatter and reschedule their trysts. You and your scouts have as much right to use the public facility as anybody else. Clearly no one wants to start a confrontation, but I see no reason why you should not go ahead with your plan.

[eisely]

One more thought - this sort of concern is one of the reasons for the "buddy system." Make sure your scouts buddy up and stay buddied up.

[GaHillBilly]

Good ideas, all.

 

Thanks

 

GaHillBilly

 

PS: Hadn''t thought of calling the police (rangers) first. But, if he''s on duty, the senior guy is an amateur naturalist, and would probably enjoy the excuse to show up.

[eisely]

Returning to the original subject of this thread....the thought occurs to me that Craig might have able to raise another defense - restless leg syndrome.

[eisely]

Here is a different spin on Craig''s situation.

 

ACLU says First Amendment protects Craig''s bathroom behavior

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

 

MINNEAPOLIS -- Sen. Larry Craig''s foot-tapping and hand movements in an airport bathroom amounted to speech protected by the First Amendment, the American Civil Liberties Union argued in court papers on Monday.

 

The Idaho senator pleaded guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct after an undercover officer at the Minneapolis airport alleged that Craig solicited him for sex. Craig has denied that, and his attorneys have asked a judge to let him withdraw the guilty plea.

 

Craig was accused of moving his foot next to a police officer''s foot and tapping it in a way that indicated he wanted sex. He was also accused of sending a signal by swiping his hand under the divider between the stalls, and of peering into the officer''s stall before Craig took his own stall.

 

Even if he did those things, they''re not a crime, the ACLU argued. And even if Craig solicited sex, it would only be a crime if police could prove he was seeking illegal bathroom sex and not a legal liaison somewhere else.

 

The ACLU also argued that the disorderly conduct statute is too vague to be enforceable in Craig''s case.

 

The ACLU asked the judge to accept its arguments as a friend-of-the-court brief in Craig''s case.

 

Chuck Samuelson, the executive director of the ACLU''s Minnesota branch, said other police departments have prevented bathroom sex by posting signs and patrolling with uniformed officers.

 

Samuelson said the airport undercover work "is the kind of sting operation that at the very best borders on entrapment."

 

A Hennepin County District Court judge is scheduled to hear arguments on Craig''s motion to withdraw his guilty plea on Sept. 26.

 

---