Reed,

I agree he shouldn't be hounded out of the Senate, yet if he is being "hounded out" its by his own party and constituents, not the gays or Democrats. Craig is paying for his hypocrisy.

You claimed "..no words were expressed..."

Suppose a deaf mute used sign language to solicit homosexual acts from from an undercover cop, wouldn't this be the same as what Craig did? Craig initiated the action by being the first to send (sign) a 'signal", tapping the foot. Lets not let Craig off the hook entirely.

So why aren't those who believe in law and tolerance standing up for (even) Senator Craig?

You have a point, but who would step forward in his defense that Craig would accept; Barney Frank? Jim Kolbe? Mark Foley? Ted Kennedy? Hillary? Obama? Rev. Ted Haggard?

Maybe the Democrats and gays are in fact supporting Craig.....by not attacking him, by not piling on. Craig is defending himself from his own party and constituents, not the Dems or gays.

I wonder why the Log Cabin Republicans are so quiet.

By the way, unless this activitiy was so prevelant in that particular rest room so as to disturb toilet seeking people on a regular basis, I think this is a total waste of police manpower.

The Democrats don't need to go out on a limb on this issue. Mr Hundt's certainty notwithstanding, there is reasonable dispute & controversy over which side of the law, & of the spirit of the law, Sen. Craig stands on. Outspoken Democratic support would open the party up to charges of being "the party of public restroom cruising". Walking into his office and saying "Personally, I think you're being treated unfairly; good luck" seems sufficient.

Reed,

When I listened to the audio tape of the officer, it was clear to me that Craig was doing what he was originally charged with (not the plead guilty and we'll drop these charges).

There is an unspoken heterosexual etiquette in a bathroom that you do not peek through the space between a stall door and it's frame. If you're looking through to the inhabitant so closely that he can see the color of your eyes, what is so difficult to understand about harassment?

What would be the charge if a man entered a women's bathroom, and peeked like that?

According to the police, the reason for the sting operation is that this type of harassment was going on in the first place.

The reason that Frank, et all, don't have to constantly deal with the issue of orientation is that they are OUT. They're not constantly spouting about "moral values" while carrying on a double life filled with hypocrisy.

I'd be OK with Craig staying in if he came out, but this "I'm not gay" bull**** is too much to listen to. What is the line that he thinks determines gay?

"I'm not gay. I have sex with men, but I don't listen to Bette Midler."

Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
Iranians are fighting the Americans in Iraq so they don't have to fight them on the streets of Tehran

What is your basis for asserting that the arrest was illegal?

Pled guilty. 'Nuff said.

There is an unspoken heterosexual etiquette in a bathroom that you do not peek through the space between a stall door and it's frame. If you're looking through to the inhabitant so closely that he can see the color of your eyes, what is so difficult to understand about harassment?

I don't think people should generally be forced out of their jobs for violating bathroom etiquette. There is also an unspoken rule of public restroom etiquette that you should not fart when you are relieving yourself at a urinal, especially when other people are relieving themselves at the urinals next to you. I can attest that this rule is flagrantly violated, and I personally find the violations more repulsive and offensive than toe-tapping or wandering eyes.

I agree with Reid.

Actually, the reason the Airport Police were doing sting operations in THAT PARTICULAR MEN'S LOO has to do with Airport Security.

From the time the Airport was built, that particular Loo has been well known as a cruise spot. Typically, local male prostitutes do business there, providing services for men just like Senator Craig -- and they have been doing it for years. Then came 9/11, and the Feds told the Airport Commission to move the security zone way out. THAT PARTICULAR MEN'S LOO then fell behind the security perimeter, meaning to get to it, one must be a ticketed passenger who has passed through security, a passenger in transit, or an airport employee with a security pass. That made life rather difficult for the male hookers for whom this was an established place of business, and where traditionally the Airport Police just keep their eyes on it, but didn't make many arrests.

This came to be understood as Airport Security did an analysis of who had been caught breaking through the new Security Perimeter. You know, the FAA and Homeland Security requires such an analysis. Airports get graded on how complete their security is. In fact, this issue even went to the Joint Terrorism Taskforce locally -- where the Feds discuss things with their state and local counterparts. It was their recommendations that led to the decision to do stings -- arresting the local hookers, and in the process, quite a number of their clients. Thus the Mpls Police and the Hennepin County Prosecutors got tasked with this particular aspect of making our local airport Terrorist-proof. In the quarter when Craig was arrested, the cops made 41 arrests, all of whom pled guilty.

This actually has nothing to do with sexuality or out or closeted life styles -- it is all about the strategy for fighting the war on Terrorists.

Should they be "forced out of their jobs" for trying to have public sex in a public bathroom? Depends on the job. Trucker, plumber, car mechanic, maybe not. Teacher, camp counselor, Senator...see ya!

Where is it written that Craig is gay? He says he's not. Until he says he is, he isn't. Anyone who champions a person's right of self-determination cannot believe otherwise - unless he's one of those who champions his own but nobody else's, aka the moral majority.

Dan,

There is a rather "wide stance" between farting and running your eyes over the package of the guy at the next urinal.

One expects bad smells- it's a restroom after all. One does not expect to be cruised, nor should they have to put up with that harassing behavior.

So if he's being forced out of his job because of his predatory and sexually harassing behavior, he's not the first and will probably not be the last.

Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
Iranians are fighting the Americans in Iraq so they don't have to fight them on the streets of Tehran

I agree with Reed. The problem, though is not that people won't stand up for Craig's right to flirt in bathroom stalls. The problem is that Craig won't stand up for himself. If Craig were out there refusing to resign, calling the arrest unjust and speaking out against idiotic police stings, then maybe people could stand up and say "don't quit." But if he's not willing to fight, I can think of a billion worthier causes.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

So if Craig "came out," admitted he was a gay exhibitionist, stood up for "his right to flirt in bathroom stalls", denounced the police for their tactics, claimed that it's his right under the Constitution to proposition strange men in public bathrooms and have sex with them...THEN you'd hop on his bandwagon?

You're kidding, right? If not, please don't admit this to anyone you know, or who knows you're a Democrat.

It's not illegal to proposition people. He wasn't arrested for an actual crime.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Please answer the question. "Where is it written that Craig is gay?" And after you answer that, please tell me what your definition of 'being gay' is. Is it what a person says of himself, or is it what society says of him. Or, if society says I'm gay and I say I'm not, who's right?

The police report seems to say that there was no dialog between Craig and the cop, and no overt lewdness. Apparently, the Senator did not tap anyone's foot hard enough to justify an assault charge. So what's the crime?

If we start convicting people for violating a cop's interpretation of hand-waving...never mind, we're already throwing people in jail for less.

Another question. If Craig had acted like he did in a woman's public bathroom, would his 'straightness' even have come up in the public discourse? Beside the point, just as Craig's assumed gayness should be beside the point - not to mention how unfair it is to the gay community.

There is simply no evidence at all that Craig is a sexual predator. Whether he was engaging in any kind of harrassment, or indeed anything illegal, seems borderline, and depends a great deal on how much of the police officer's story one chooses to believe.

Yes, one should respect other people's privacy, and not check them out when they are in a vulnerable position. But I don't think it should be a career-ender.

Well as long as they are paying a police officer to hang out in this restroom, why not just have him in uniform, or have him flash his badge around and say "police officer" to anyone who looks at him funny. That would have the same, or stronger deterrent effect, and likely prevent 100% of the nuisance sex in the restroom stalls that the police are seeking to curtail.

Dunno, and neither do you. It would be my surmise, however, that a US Senator is unlikely to set up a portable stage and a glitter ball to engage in kinky sex.

I'll have to take your word for that. Meanwhile, I urge you to adopt my slogan, "The only good nit is a dead nit."

Democrats should play no part in defending Senator Craig. Who really cares about him. However, he does need to remain in the news as long as possible, to hasten the day when conservative Christians wake up and realize that the Republican party has nothing for them.

I want Robert Byrd to thunder, "The United States Senate cannot concern itself with the toilet manners of its members. Frankly, Senator Craig's bathroom escapades are beneath this great body. My Republican friends are to be praised for their tolerance and understanding, as they embrace one of their own for the man he really is, and spare this great body the sorry spectacle of inquiring into the Senator's sexual solitications. Their rejection of competitive neoMcCarthyism is in the finest tradition of the Senate."

He was arrested for disorderly conduct, the particulars and substance of which indicate that he was engaged in an act of gay cruising, looking for and approaching a potential partner in order to facilitate having sex (getting his cock sucked) with a complete stranger in which he and his genitals would be exposed in a public place, to which members of the general public, included children of all ages, and persons not oriented to homosexual sexual acts would be exposed. In effect, he was engaged in conspiracy to commit an offence.

Don't go all lawyer on me. I am a lawyer, I've practiced for almost twenty years, I've done criminal law as a prosecutor and a defense attorney, and I'm somewhat familiar with the issues.

The standards that you somehow find so outrageous applied to Craig and his escapade have been applied to heterosexual prostitutes, to drug users, and to all manner of persons and situations for decades upon decades.

Now, I've already called this particular tactic of police stings a colossal waste of resources and an inappropriate way to handle the problem of tea houses. What more do you want?

I have no particular sympathy for Craig, but then again, I'm not the one calling for his resignation.

That call is being ushered by the assorted scumbags, racists, homophobes, philanders, whoremongers and sundry, who he has chosen to associate with, and on behalf of whom he has frequently gone on the attack against decent, kind, tolerant people.

So what do you want? You want I should ride to the defense of Craig, protect and shelter him, even as he continues to strike out and undermine the very people called to rescue him? Sorry, not in the mood.

The man is a naked, proven, despicable hypocrite. His behaviour was despicable even by the most moderate liberal and gay standards.

His freres have turned on him, not because he is gay, not because he is despicable, but merely because he was caught.

If he wants to fight them for his job... Well, pass the popcorn. I'm pulling up a ringside seat. This is like watching Vampires vs Nazi's.

There is simply no evidence at all that Craig is a sexual predator. Whether he was engaging in any kind of harrassment, or indeed anything illegal, seems borderline, and depends a great deal on how much of the police officer's story one chooses to believe.

Well, if the only version of sexual predation that you recognize is the one from MSNBC, then read the link I've posted below to the Smoking Gun and the law cited.

This entire thread from Reed is predicated on his decision that the law and it's enforcement is unjust. Well, pardon me, but I think I should be able to grow enough pot for personal consumption in my backyard, and I don't give a shit what the Feds say. Do you think Mr. Craig or Reed would leap to my defense?

Hardly.

Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
Iranians are fighting the Americans in Iraq so they don't have to fight them on the streets of Tehran

First the bumpersticker:

LAW-MAKERS SOULD NOT BE LAW-BREAKERS!

This is not about sexual orientation. This is about the Constituion.

All that aside, the crown jewel in Craig's legacy is the dismal conditions and demise of Walter-Reed Hospital. The crap Craig did to the VA should earn him a past lifetime seat in hell for infamy and murder. Craig should not just be thrown out of the Senate. Craig should do several life sentences in lock-up.

Wouldn't the best way to deal with that be to beef up the security perimeter?  And maybe, I dunno, ask people if they have tickets?

Not defending the policy mind you -- just putting forward why it was adopted. The Airport is huge, hundreds of employees not only of the Airlines, but all the shops and restaurants, the cleaning crews and all as well as obviously passengers. Remember, this is Northwest's Home Base. The point is they did an analysis of who was caught breaking through the security screen -- and then let the Joint Terrorism Taskforce come up with a solution. And yep, they decided to do stings, and turn the resulting arrestees over to the Prosecutor.

By the way, till last December the Hennepin County Prosecutor was Amy Klobuchar, who now sits across the aisle in the Senate from Craig.

"Just or not, there's little doubt that is a risk he knew he bore. So I feel he has to bear that consequence."

I have heard this argument made in many circumstances and it has always gone over my head. Why should knowledge of a risk or penalty override the question of justness?

I have very little sympathy for Craig in this case, but neither do I understand the principal behind your diminishment of the question of equity.

Example: A woman in Iran is aware that feminine hair must be veiled, but chooses to go uncovered. She loses her job (or whatever), but "I feel [s]he has to bear that consequence."

Common sentiment. Not logical.

I don't know if I buy the idea of winning the kinky vote.

Oh that was sort of a silly thrown-in thought on my part. No beer needed. :-) I was not thinking Dobson family values voters. I was imagining that plenty of Limbaughites & Wall Streeters like their porn, thinking first they come for the gays, then they come for me, some thinking "I am getting sick of this hypocrite buttinsky shit" in the privacy of the voting booth. (Don't forget, the majority were with Clinton on the blow job not being an outrage.) It's the cumulative effect. And many of the libertarian wing of the GOP have long been fed up with the buttinsky family values crowd. Throw in Jay Leno et. al.'s casual take on it, making it all a joke, something that say, 15 years ago would be shocking to a lot more people.

I put in the Schiavo thing, though for a different reason. The Dems just shut up and let them hang themselves with that. That worked very well, mho. I see no good reason for them not to do the same now on this "private life" issue.

Further, it's not much business of theirs to agitate for him to not to resign or resign unless they actually have an outraged family values constituency or care about a Senator having a pristine private life as a mark of professionalism. The resigning is all about hypocrisy to the "government promotion of sex only within marriage" crowd, which is not on the Dem platform, so why should they care? If something like a censure vote comes up, then they can express that private life issues of this type are not a requirement of the job of Senator and there is no need for censure. Why speak up now? If he wants to resign or the right wants him to resign because he's a hypocrite to some right wing causes, let him. All that they have to do is not look like they too are forcing him out, and it's a win/win. They have absolutely no good reason to scream "no, don't resign!"

perhaps he shouldn't have pled guilty.

There is no false argument more pernicious than this one.

Guilty pleas of innocents in lieu of vast expense and exposure with enormous consequences are quite common.

The single person that George Bush had a hand in saving from execution in Texas was serial killer, Henry Lee Lucas.

Lucas was a virtual confession machine after he was arrested. He was set for execution for a murder he rather obviously didn't commit. Lucas remains in prison for life convicted of the murder of "orange socks" while the actual murderer in that case got off scot free.

This is known laughably as justice.

Best, Terry

We don't know if Craig likes 'to do it' with other guys. Yet we do seem to 'know' that he's gay. We've tagged him as gay based on? Labels are loaded, and when we put a label on someone that person is immediately everything that the label carries with it.

Labelling in the world of politics is rampant nowadays. Kerry is a flip-flopper. He flip-flopped on? With the label, he flip-flops on everything. Traitor - if you protest the war. Unpatriotic - if you protest just about anything having to do with government policy.

Perhaps I'm overly sensitive to 'labelling' which is why labelling Craig a gay raised my shackles. Pervert he may be, but sexual perversion is certainly not confined to gays.

Shackles I meant and shackles they are. A freudian slip is an unconscious wish. I quite consciously wish that I could put labellers in irons so a freudian slip it tain't.

I also wish that I had never commented on this post - and I'm quite conscious of the wish.

So if it's more efficient to focus on the men's bathroom, then ask people in the men's bathroom if they have tickets.  Easy.  And way more effective.  Craig wasn't an unticketed passenger, so if the concern is unticketed passengers, what was accomplished by arresting him?

I appreciate that you are not defending the policy (and it's interesting to learn how it came into being).  But I guess I just want to suggest that the policy does have something to do with policing sexual behavior, no matter how it came into being.  The policy consists of policing sexual behavior, after all.  One can debate when/whether policing sexual behavior is okay, but yeah...

well said!

He bet that he could keep the incident quiet by pleading guilty. If he went public and fought the case he would have lost whether he won or lost the case given his constituency. Not so if he were a liberal Democrat representing San Francisco, say.

He was arrested for disorderly conduct, the particulars and substance of which indicate that he was engaged in an act of gay cruising, looking for and approaching a potential partner in order to facilitate having sex (getting his cock sucked) with a complete stranger in which he and his genitals would be exposed in a public place, to which members of the general public, included children of all ages, and persons not oriented to homosexual sexual acts would be exposed. In effect, he was engaged in conspiracy to commit an offence.

His actions indicated that he was likely looking for causal sex with a consenting adult of the same sex. Unless there was something else conveyed it the toe taping code, I see no indication that he wanted his cock sucked in front of children. Do not liberals maintain that sex between consenting adults is a constitutional right? If so how can one be criminally charged for soliciting such relationships?

Ask Paula Jones. :-)

A public lavatory in an airport, true, it was not a workplace for the men in the stalls, but it also was not a swingles bar.

BTW, keep in mind it was a misdemeanor charge. This is "vice squad" purview, where one is not so much talking about crime but about community standards. How "criminal" it is is more in standards of the community you chose to inhabit, what that community (GOP party, your own friends) does to you after you are caught, as the state is not interested in punishing you much, it is just trying to deter at request of the community. If you're not in such a community, you don't give a damn, you suffer a hassle and pay the fine, same as you might getting a ticket for drinking alcohol in public in a dry town.

I’m not interested in the history of this topic on this site. I am simply calling Valdron, a gold plated liberal, out on his opinions about casual, homosexual sex.

You called me a Liberal? I hurt people for that Robert. You may consider me gold plated, but you're ass is obviously candy coated.

You want my opinions on casual, homosexual sex. Not interested in it. Not interested in doing, watching, listening or hearing. That said, two gays want to get together, go someplace private, and engage in the sign of the three lobed finn whale together, all power to them.

Two men want to make a date? Fine with me. They can go out to dinner and a movie, or they can treat themselves to a hotel. There are gay bathhouses and gay bars, and all sorts of places where they can conduct their sexuality in private, in safety, and free from risk.

On the other hand, a public washroom is not one of those places. Nor is the checkout counter in a supermarket. Nor are any number of other public places.

I don't think it's particularly liberal or conservative to prohibit or limit public sex. And really, this is what it's about.

You're being disingenous Robert, in that you are pretending that it's not public sex we're talking about.

The standards of communication and activity that Craig got caught with are the same sorts of standards that prostitutes get busted on all the time. The clear communication of intent and arrangement to engage in a prohibited act. But no one cries for prostitutes.

Are you seriously going to argue that Senator Craig was not trolling for sex? That he was not trolling for sex in a public washroom? I don't think you can maintain either of these points.

So what's your real argument? That there's a possibility that Senator Craig, having stared intently at a man in a toilet stall through the crack in the dor, having entered the adjacent stall, having engaged in toe tapping, having thrust his foot into the other stall, and having reached under... was going to what? Invite the guy out for dinner and candlelight? Take him to a motel?

No, Craig was looking for immediate and instant gratification right there, because that's the history of this particular bathroom, and that's the history of tea rooms.

This was a public room, anyone could walk in. It was an airport, so children could walk in.

So how about if a child walked in? Two men in a stall? Feet sticking up? Creepy sucking or grunting noises? Or maybe they didn't quite shut the stall door? Maybe that's your idea of wholesome fun Robert. I gotta call it creepy, and I don't want kids exposed to any variation of it.

No one was arguing that he's not a fool, Valdron. He's a bisexual Republican super-Christian who cruised for sex in public restrooms, isn't he?

Are you kidding? A Minneapolis restroom is on the way to Congress? Did James Madison put that in or Thomas Jefferson, get your wimpoid tissue removed Reed!

Craig was no doubt trolling for casual sex. There is no way to know that he intended to engage in any kind of sex that could be considered criminal. We do not punish people for what we think they might do. Even prostitutes must offer to have sex for money before they can be arrested.

If I flirt with a woman in the ticket line should I be arrested because we might do it in public somewhere? Because some child might catch us if we did so?

After the Lawrence supreme court decision, I have a constitutional right to have any kind of sex I want with any consenting adult under the privacy right found in the constitution. I think the equal protection clause would give me the right to flirt with a man in public if I have the right to flirt with a woman in public.

Pardon me for calling you a “Liberal”. I guess you are one of those whimps like Hillary who wants to be called a “Progressive”.

Ya gotta do better than that.

So if Criag decides to knock his wife off on the whay to Congress he has immunity? I don't think so.

Craig was no doubt trolling for casual sex.

Thank you for that concession.

There is no way to know that he intended to engage in any kind of sex that could be considered criminal.

Unless he had a bouquet of flowers and the key to a hotel room ten minutes walk away, then there's a reasonable prima facie assumption that he was trolling for casual sex in the men's bathroom.

We do not punish people for what we think they might do.

But we do punish them for conspiracy, for being a party to an offence, for attempting to commit an offense, etc.

Even prostitutes must offer to have sex for money before they can be arrested.

Very true. Prostitutes solicit sex, but the what makes it illegal and gets them arrested is when they name a price, or by some sign indicate a price. Same thing here. He wasn't just soliciting sex, he was initiating contact in a public location.

If I flirt with a woman in the ticket line should I be arrested because we might do it in public somewhere? Because some child might catch us if we did so?

I can't imagine you flirting with a woman. But let's take that hypothetical case. If you offer the woman money to have sex, then yes, you're committing a crime. If you attempt to have sex in a public place and state the intention or otherwise take action, then yes, you are committing a crime. If you invite her to go to a private place to have sex and she is agreeable, then no, that's not a crime.

What part of this is giving you trouble?

After the Lawrence supreme court decision, I have a constitutional right to have any kind of sex I want with any consenting adult under the privacy right found in the constitution.

I'm glad you're thrilled by the right to privacy. But the operative element there is privacy.

I think the equal protection clause would give me the right to flirt with a man in public...

Grisly image there. But certainly. On the other hand, you wouldn't have the right to have sex in a public bathroom.

I'm a Canadian. The difference between a Canadian and an American Liberal, is that an American Liberal will listen politely to a blithering, obnoxious conservative and try to reason with them. A Canadian doesn't suffer fools. But occasionally finds recreational value in them. You're a chew toy.

If that's a miscarriage, then you might as well throw out the entire American justice system.

Excellent suggestion. It's rotten to the core.

Has Alberto Gonzales failed to teach folks anything at all?

Best, Terry

And yet if you read the documents at Smoking Gun a judicial officer found probable cause for the arrest based on the conduct that occurred.

As I've said, police operations like this are usually a colossal waste of resources.

There are usually simpler, easier ways to shut down tearooms. Strict maintenance, paint over graffiti, shut glory holes, eliminate visual access. A lot of tearooms operate on graffiti assignations. "Be here at XXX hours to get your xxxx XXXed." Eliminate the graffiti, you eliminate a lot of the communication necessary. Things like glory holes, apart from being an opportunity, are also a message. Close the opportunities to check out.

Minor structural changes, for instance, mini-stalls for urinals, or adjusting toilet stall walls, make the behaviour far more difficult.

A simple thing like increasing the wattage of the lights discourages tea room behaviours. People seem less inclined to do things under 100 watts than they are at 60. Human nature.

Prohibiting loitering, frequent random spot checks by security guards, including a continued presence by security guards in or around the facility as high traffic times are discovered.

Bottom line is that there are a multitude of tools which allow the problem of tearooms to be dealt with.

Are police stings an effective way to deal with the problem? Not really. The nature of such stings is that they make a series of random arrests until the community gets wise, and then the community simply creeps back when the police are no longer active.

Police stings are a fairly large waste of resources, particularly when you think of what else the police could or should be doing. On the other hand, from the police point of view, it's a convenient way to beef up arrest records without too much effort, and a way to grab a lot of headlines and positive press.

“What part of this is giving you trouble?”

The fact that under the law Craig did nothing more illegal that I did by publicly flirting with a woman in the ticket line. The police have no way of inferring that we are planning to have sex in a public place. Craig did it in a bathroom since he is clearly ashamed of being gay and does not want to get caught. Otherwise. the police have no more reason to infer that he was going to have sex in public that I was.

It’s not that difficult unless you are harboring some latent anti-gay sentiments.

Silly Babbit, trix is for kids.

Craig did it in a bathroom since he is clearly ashamed of being gay and does not want to get caught.

I would argue that if he's doing it in a public bathroom, he really does want to get caught on some subconscious level. Having said that, I can't say I'm interested in the emotional or psychological problems of Republicans.

The police have no way of inferring that we are planning to have sex in a public place. ... the police have no more reason to infer that he was going to have sex in public that I was.

Well, actually, this was a public bathroom notorious for and well known for public cruising.

It was a bathroom which was, we have discovered, being used frequently by gay male prostitutes.

It was a bathroom from which the police had made more than 40 arrests and received numerous other complaints.

Certain locations allow inferences to be made. If you're standing in the middle of a bank vault with your pockets stuffed with brand new stacks of bills, then, let's face it, there's some reasonable inferences to be made that you've been robbing the bank.

A woman in lingerie on a street well known for hookers... that allows inferences to be made. A man walking down the street carrying a television set a block away from the scene of an appliance store looting allows inferences to be made.

So, context does allow certain inferences to be made.

And so does conduct. In this case, our Hero, Senator Craig initiated the conduct, and initiated contact by staring long and hard through the crack in the stall door, so intently that the officer could make out the colour of his eyes. You have to admit, that's creepy.

He then enters the adjacent stall, begins to engage in toe tapping exercises. He signals his intentions by shoving his foot into the other stall, and then by reaching his hand under.

Now, it's possible that under some circumstances, this qualifies as flirting.

But its as clear as the moment that a prostitute names a price, that at some point, his behaviour in the opinion of the police officer crossed over the threshold of flirting, into a clear invitation in the established coded language of Tea Rooms, to have have gay sex.

Assuming that this Senator was as repressed and insecure as you say, what's your argument? People in that situation minimize the contact, they don't want to talk, they don't want to have a relationship, they want gratification asap, within seconds or minutes of contact.

I dunno. You can argue till you're blue in the face, but it won't change the factual circumstances.

He pleaded guilty to a charge of disorderly conduct.

Really, if he was disagreeing with the inferences that the police were drawing, he could have stood his ground.

It’s not that difficult unless you are harboring some latent anti-gay sentiments.

For the record, I don't care how you live your life.

Not the Hillary Card....do your worst! So Robert Brown wants to turn bathroom stalls in US airports into 'any kind of sex I want' brothels (as long as no money is exchanged)?

It's not clear why this facility became a tearoom, or what if anything management did to deal with the problem. As far as I can tell, that particular issue has not been canvassed.

As for Craig, the officer may well have been wiling to treat it as an ordinary bust. But in that case, Craig became his own worst enemy, dealing with it in a public court, quickly and in the middle of a news cycle. He could have gamed the system in the ways that are familiar to any habitual criminal or to any criminal lawyer. Instead he opted for an approach that maximized his publicity.

In the United States we do not punish someone just because others in his situation are committing crimes. Just because a bank robbery is taking place at a certain bank and certain men are engaging in bank robbery does not give the police the right to assume that an individual armed man found in that bank vault with his laundry man stuffed with cash is a criminal until he actually commits a criminal act.

In Canada we generally don't waste our time with tearoom sting operations, but we do minimize and discourage the activity through sensible measures and precautions.

I had a thought yesterday when I was on this thread yesterday, but didn't put it down because it was getting too off-topic of the Senator's job status. But you've offered an in. :-)

There is another [sarcasm] lovely [/sarcasm] alternative to stings to dealing with naughtiness in public bathrooms, whether it's sex, smoking marijuana, junkies shooting up. It's a communal punishment: just take the stall doors away. It's still common in bad schools, unpoliced public bathrooms in parks, certain kinds of institutions, etc.

Also, if women had the tearoom problem, I guarantee you what the solution would be: vigilantism. As in "quit playing footsie, ladies, get your asses out of those stalls and do whatever you are doing elsewhere, or we in line are going to drag you out of there by your hair, because we have to pee before we get on the plane."

Go read the rest of my comment.

I have the right to have sex with any one I want, not any place I want. Public flirting is not engaging in sex.

a) You have the right to sex with anyone you want and who is willing to have sex with you. I imagine that narrows your prospects immensely.

b) Agreed that you do not have a right to any place you want. Glad we got that straightened out. In fact, I think everyone is glad.

c) Public flirting is indeed not engaging in sex. However, not all behaviour is flirting, and some behaviour crosses the line into illegal conduct. The right to flirt does not confer the right to sexually harass, to stalk, to cop unwanted feels, etc. The only legal question before us is whether Craig's behaviour reached a threshold of criminal behaviour. Craig answered that question himself when he pleaded guilty.

I'm not sure I get your point nor whether you were trying to make one. My point was that even in regulating sexual behavior, which is already beyond the pale of society's interests, the rule should be "no harm, no crime." If we start taking away peoples' liberty or property based on what some cop thinks someone is trying to signal about his desires, we're well on the road to perdition. Which of course we already are.

What goes on privately between two adults is nobody's business but theirs as long as no one is injured. Strike one. Freedom of speech is protected under the Constitution. Strike two. And interpreting hand signals is necessarily based on pre-judgement. Strike three. Pick one to throw the case out of court.

Under the circumstances, is that the metaphor you really want to use?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Probable cause is not justification for arrest and trial. It is justification for a police officer to search for evidence, i.e. stop a motor vehicle or obtain a search warrant which may result in enough evidence for arrest and trial.

The police officer in the adjoining stall had probable cause to think that Craig was interested in having public sex with him, he had no evidence to arrest him for a crime. Had he been able the entice Craig into making an explicit invitation to have sex with him in the bathroom, he would have had the necessary evidence for an arrest.

By the way I don’t bother to clap any of my organs as the result of such an easy victory.

You don't consider sex in a public bathroom "public?" Or do you imagine Craig was trying to pick up the cop and check into a hotel between flights?

Your excuse-making is pretty embarrassing. I don't suggest you let anyone you know become aware of it.

Oh, well, if Kinsley said it it must be true...Not!

And the operative term is "prefer to have" sex with men, not "having had" sex with men. Snap out of it, lard brain.

As a matter of fact, it IS illegal to proposition people. Try using some of your best pick-up lines outside the women's bathroom at the mall, or plop down next to someone on the bus and start "propositioning" them. You'll see real fast how legal it is!

Most people cut each other a lot of slack in this regard. The standards for "interference with privacy" and for "engaging in conduct one knows, or should know, will cause discomfort or resentment in others" (the cahrge Craig pleaded to) are different in a public bathroom than they are in a night club. The laws against propositioning people are vaguely written because it's impossible to be specific. The main criterion is that the behavior is upsetting enough for the people being "propositioned" to complain to the police, which is exactly what happened in that bathroom. That's why the cops were there.

How about walking into his office and saying, "Get the fuck out of the Senate you hypocritical pervert."

Asked and answered, Tom. Your inattention is pretty embarrassing, but not as much so as your unfortunately Freudian screen name. I don't suggest that you choose now to try picking on someone your own size, 'cause I might decide you're worth the attention required to clean your clock.

Never mind, you're not worth the attention.

Thank you for all your legal advice. The next time I have the opportunity to present a case before the Supreme Court, I will review your all your eloquent arguments on this thread, including:

"Get the fuck out"
"That's horseshit"
"leak or shit, wash up, and get out"

I'm sure these expressions will go far in helping me win my case.

I am also quite taken with your use of the word "quaint." It has garnered quite a bit of support in the legal community over the past few years, having been used by those of impeccable legal credentials.

Is there some way I can get in touch with you if I need further consultation? I know, just write your phone number on the restroom wall at Greater Pittsburgh Airport, following the words, "For a good time call..."

An odd and pointless reply from you, unless you're trying to make sure everybody here knows how thin-skinned you are.

Can you actually point to some case law that supports your earlier assertions that Craig's case is a cinch to be dismissed? Offhand, I know of 41 guilty pleas that preceded Craig's, none of which has been thrown out or refused by a judge sharing your POV. I know of at least two Minnesota statutes, one prohibiting "interference with privacy" and the other prohibiting "verbal or nonverbal conduct that one knows or should know will cause discomfort or resentment to others," neither of which have been declared unconstitutional or even been challenged.

Maybe if you can provide some other vice case that got thrown out on grounds similar to the ones you suggest make Craig's case a cinch for dismissal, then your assertion would be something more than just hot air.

And using the word "quaint" doesn't make me like Gonzalez any more than using the word "fuck" makes Bill Maher like Cheney.
Your ad hominem threats and insinuations are as vapid and empty as your legal "arguments."

Now we're getting somewhere. The cop thinks he was soliciting sex. I think he was soliciting sex. You think he was soliciting sex. You're right, WE can't hang him, because we're not the jury, or the trial judge. The cop didn't hang him, but it DOES matter what he thinks, because the cop arrested him. It's up to the jury (or, if Craig waives a jury trial, the judge) to weigh the evidence and "hang" him or exonerate him.

The cop wasn't the judge and jury. He was just the cop. He felt he saw a crime committed and arrested the guy. As it turned out, he was right, since the guy pleaded guilty.

You're tilting at windmills. You're saying, in effect, cops shouldn't be allowed to arrest anyone just because they think they've caught them committing a crime. It's an absurd position.

Idaho is a timber state, or used to be, and yeah, they have lumberjacks, the state is full of them. They cut down trees, they eat their lunch, and they like to go to the lavatory.....

It's more insidious than a simple waste of police manpower.

Apparently, Senator Craig signaled an interest in sex. Clearly, the policeman gave the Senator a positive response. Question asked, question answered.

Why is it illegal for one person to extend to another person an invitation to participate in a sexual act?

As odious as the Senator's own answer to the question might be, this event and the public interest in it provide an opportunity for progressives to make it clear that we don't believe the government should intrude into the sexual behavior of consenting adults.

"I'm not sure I get your point nor whether you were trying to make one."

Then let me help you. Glenn in NY said "the arrest was most probably illegal." I asked why he thought that. You said "what's the crime?" I pointed out that a judicial officer determined that there was probable cause for the arrest.

My point was that it's not difficult to see what the crime is. Pull up the documents. An independent magistrate made the determination that is required under the Constitution that, taking the facts as presented by the police officer (which are largely unchallenged by Craig), probable cause existed for Craig's arrest on the charge of interference with privacy.

"What goes on privately between two adults is nobody's business but theirs as long as no one is injured." Aside from possible injury to others in this public place, this particular incident didn't happen between two consenting adults. It was between Craig and a cop. Strike one.

"Freedom of speech is protected under the Constitution." Staring through the crack in the door ain't protected speech. Strike two.

"And interpreting hand signals is necessarily based on pre-judgement." The crime he was involved with didn't require any interpretation of hand signals. Strike three.

Again, as I have pointed out elsewhere, we do not punish people for crimes we think they are going to commit, no matter how likely we think that is. We must have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt the individual actually committed a crime. Not other people who look or act like him.

By the way I think there are more than a few fringe pervert weirdos who think it should be illegal for a brother and sister to have sex. I don’t agree with them, but I wouldn’t call them weirdos.