What did he do wrong?

[John-in-KC 311]

Vicki said,

 

"The point being that our society is losing its way across the board. The belief that breaches of trust and honor (using Pack's words, they fit) are irrelevant somehow seems to be gaining hold. The loss of an understanding that without trust and honor, no matter what our core beliefs, we are nothing. In our efforts to promote our own ideologies and defend those who espouse them we are losing sight of the fact that ideology isn't everything."

 

Vicki, thank you! That says an awful lot about us these days, very eloquently.

 

John

 

[packsaddle 753]

Hi Vicki, Thanks for your wisdom in this. And you're right, it has happened countless times - I observed it rampant in private industry. I'm not sure how my application of "...terrible breach of honor and trust..." to Bill Clinton constitutes a defence of his actions. Maybe I'm still not comprehending things correctly.

 

Given what I see in recent administrations it is difficult to argue that you are wrong regarding the relevance placed on breaches of trust and honor. I am, nevertheless, optimistic (there must be something wrong with me today ).

It is possible that people who have an expectation of trust and honor in others can be easily deceived by persons who are practiced and successful in breaches of trust and honor. Therefore, while it is possible to have an appearance that these things are not relevant, it may actually be that their relevance is late coming to focus on those who are so practiced in their deceptions.

To put is differently, we may have been hoodwinked by clever people who we hoped and thought could be trusted. And now we must wait until the process allows us to sweep out the barn, so-to-speak. OK, my optimism is starting to fade, I'll get back to work.

[Hunt 11]

I don't want to talk about moral relativism, but I do think that there are degrees of hypocrasy. While I do think it's hypocritical to appear to be something you're not (i.e., Clinton trying to appear to be a good family man), I think it's more hypocritical to punish other people for doing what you yourself are secretly doing--i.e., supporting kicking people out of the military for gay encounters, as Craig did.

[Trevorum 24]

Craig has said that he is not homosexual. I wonder if that statement is just politics or if he really believes it. Seriously. Maybe he genuinely thinks that he is straight but, being a weak mortal, he is occasionally overwhelmed by satanic urges. Not that it makes any difference - either way, he's still a hypocrite.

[erickelly65 10]

This op/ed piece best summarizes my view of this entire fiasco....

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20070903/cm_huffpost/062928;_ylt=AmXiLQ9fCL.neVwlSzEUbMn9wxIF

Opinion

In the Age of Terror, Isn't Busting Toe-Tappers an Insane Use of Our Law Enforcement Resources? Arianna Huffington

Mon Sep 3, 6:22 PM ET

 

 

 

In the consensus judgment of America's 16 intelligence agencies, the terrorist threat to our homeland is "persistent and evolving," placing our country in "a heightened threat environment."

 

Given that chilling assessment, isn't it the height of madness to use America's finite law enforcement resources to seek out and arrest people for tapping the foot of a cute undercover officer in a restroom?

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not wild about walking into a public restroom and seeing a couple using the a stall for something other than, as Sgt. Dave Karsnia, the arresting officer in the Craig case put it, "its intended use."

 

But that is not what Larry Craig did. If he had, someone in the restroom could have done what most people do when they see a law being broken: go get a cop.

 

And as it happens, since Craig was arrested in an airport, presumably there were plenty of law enforcement officers nearby looking for, you know, real threats -- like explosives or folks on a Watch List. Assuming, that is, they weren't all hunkered down in other bathrooms across the airport, protecting the public against people who might be thinking about having sex.

 

Let me be clear: I'm no fan of Larry Craig. Indeed, I disagree with almost everything he stands for. And I'd much rather he not be in the United States Senate. But I'd also rather have had his exit be the result of his constituents voting on his ideas and policies, instead of a ridiculous sting operation in an airport bathroom.

 

At least it's nice to see that, while the cable networks have been giving the incident their usual nuanced treatment, bloggers across the political spectrum have taken a step back to look at the real issues here.

 

Garance Franke-Ruta of The American Prospect asks: "Was there anything criminal about Sen. Larry Craig's gestures if they suggested a desire for consensual lewd behavior of some kind with the man in the adjacent restroom stall?" Her answer: no.

 

Conservative University of Minnesota law professor Dale Carpenter, blogging at the Volokh Conspiracy, agrees with her:

 

"Disorderly conduct is a notoriously nebulous crime, allowing police wide discretion in making arrests and charges for conduct or speech that is little more than bothersome to police or to others."

 

 

 

As Carpenter and Franke-Ruta both point out, soliciting someone to have sex with you is not a crime in Minnesota. If Craig had solicited someone, which then led to a round of bathroom sex, then yes, arrest them. But that's not what happened.

 

It's unsettling that more people here in the land of the free aren't at all discomfited at leaving it up to the prognostication skills of Sgt. Karsnia and his crack team of B-men to determine what crimes people might have committed if not for the mind-reading and daring-do of Minneapolis' Special Forces Bathroom Unit.

 

Conservative pundit Mark Steyn thinks that Craig was up to no good, but says, "Karsnia sounds just as weird and creepy: a guy who's paid to sit in a bathroom stall for hours on end observing adjoining ankles. I'd rather hand out traffic tickets."

 

But beyond them being weird and creepy, these kinds of stings also have a huge opportunity cost to them. There clearly are very serious potential threats to our safety to be found in airports -- outside of bathroom stalls. Is sending Sgt. Karsnia into the men's room to spend all day trying to get other men to look at him and tap his foot really the best way to use our limited law enforcement resources?

 

And just how much money is Minneapolis/St. Paul spending on sting operations like this one? Just since May, 40 men have been arrested on allegations of illegal sexual activity at the same airport. And how much taxpayer money in total is being allocated across the country by local police to protect us from people whom the Sgt. Karsnias of the world think might, at some point, commit a crime?

 

We at HuffPost are working to pull these numbers together by calling local police departments all across America, since the numbers don't seem to be readily available. We'd love your help on this; please send us any figures or worthwhile information you can find (post them in the comments section below or email max@huffingtonpost.com).

 

Here's another question to ask: does the Minneapolis police force look around its members for officers they think might be attractive to gay men? Or do they specifically search out recruits who would make good undercover "twinks," "bears," and "silver foxes"?

 

And, yes, I know, Sen. Craig pleaded guilty. But given the inevitable humiliation that would have ensued had he challenged this arrest, it's not hard to imagine that he felt he had no other choice. The same goes for the thousands of other men who have been snared in these wasteful sting operations.

 

But those of us who prefer that our public servants go after actual lawbreakers rather than use our resources to humiliate gay people do have a choice. And we should make it clear that we want our police going after terrorists -- not toe-tappers.

 

Since the news about Craig broke, the media focus has been on his sexual perversions -- it's time to turn the spotlight on the perverted priorities of America's law enforcement community.

 

[OldGreyEagle 5]

I almost agree with the writer, but why do I keep thinking this is like the exasperated business man who when stopped for doing 50 MPH in a 30 MPH zone demands to know from the officer why the officer isnt out catching "real criminals" and not harassing law abiding citizens?

[GernBlansten 10]

With all this hand wringing on why this cop was enforcing this particular law, one must see the irony that this dragnet caught a conservative lawmaker with a law written by a conservative lawmaker. Does anyone really think this moral turpitude ordinance was written by a liberal? Ok, I am making an assumption here, but I bet there are no such ordinances in San Fransisco.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

But there is one such law in Beverly Hills, California for sure at least in 1998 and Beverly Hills has never been mistaken for a bedrock of conservatism

 

Minneapolis, Minnesota is a pretty liberal place, at least I always thought so, I could be wrong

[LongHaul 10]

50 in a 30 zone is based on real evidence not "subjective interpretation". Everyone that was not in a stall in that airport could have been arrested for peeping unless the had their eyes glued on the ceiling or floor and could prove it. If someone is stalking you with the intent of doing you bodily harm the law must wait till a crime has been committed before they can act if their intent is consensual sex all we need is desire? I am opposed to what Craig did but I am more opposed at how it was handled by those in a position to uphold the law. LongHaul

[GernBlansten 10]

You are so right OGE. The twin cities is the home of our favorite godless liberal here on this site as well. My point is that moral turpitude ordinances are more likely to come from a conservative legislature than a liberal one since legislating morality is a plank in the conservative platform.

 

I also think the flatfoot prematurely pulled the trigger on the perp. He should have waited until Craig either entered his stall or overtly asked for company in his. Until then, no crime was committed, in my mind. That's why I'm astonished the distinguished gentleman from Idaho copped to a guilty plea.

 

[Vicki 11]

Well, and I don't really know how it works in a men's room (for obvious reasons), but in a women's restroom if you speak to the person in the stall next to you and wave your fingers under the wall, you are probably asking for toilet paper. If you still don't get the other woman's attention, you might wave a foot.

 

Not saying that's the situation here, but that's how we ladies do it.

 

Vicki

[GernBlansten 10]

Vicki,

Men (especially Scouters) always check for an ample supply of TP before assuming the position. Be Prepared!

Never have I asked my stall mate, "Sorry to interrupt chap, but could you spare a square?"

[Vicki 11]

Gern, I, too, have been known to check the supply. But just one moment of inattention...

 

I have understood from my beloved that men's room etiquette is quite a bit more dour than the more convivial atmosphere in the lady's loo.

 

Vicki

[OldGreyEagle 5]

then again, one fears the response, "I haven't a square to spare"

 

 

But it does bring a new meaning to the childhood rhyme "skip to my loo, my darling..."

[packsaddle 753]

...groan...I suppose the turn this thread has taken was predictable.