What if?

Having just read about Larry Craig's resignation, and listened carefully to the audio of his extended argument with the arresting officer (transcript here), I'm once again struck by the man's astounding stupidity in not having had the common sense to get a lawyer. No jury would have convicted him.

But does that matter?

Let's assume he'd hired a lawyer and gone to trial. Wouldn't it have been a huge media event -- possibly even bigger than this one? Wouldn't there have been the same calls for his resignation, even if he'd been acquitted?

I don't know, but I think there might have been nearly identical calls for him to resign -- to "spare the country the embarrassment of a trial."

As it is, there appears to have been no crime committed, and that doesn't seem to matter, because he pleaded guilty.

That might not have mattered either. (Did Mark Foley ever plead guilty? To anything?)

In politics, an accusation seems to be enough.

(Especially when Republicans are accused.)

MORE: Craig is toast, so his career in the Senate is no longer the point here. But after listening to that recording, I find myself left with a very unsettling feeling that this case simply does not make sense. Not only did nothing illegal happen on the face of these facts, but there was no underlying criminal charge which could have been brought. Yet a three-term United States Senator pleaded guilty.

Why? Unless he is a moron or insane, he had to know this was a career-ending move. For the life of me, I cannot understand it.

I am not alone in my suspicions. Here's a police officer posting at FreeRepublic.com:

I listened to the tape of Senator Craig being interviewed by Officer Karsnia and I've got to tell you that in over a decade in Law Enforcement I've never been so ashamed....

Of an officer.

This kid should be suspended for making a false arrest. There is absolutely no probable cause, not a lick of evidence outside this kid's feelings, or enthusiasm for arrest stats.

Unbelievable. Craig may be gay and might even visit rest rooms on occasions but this is a REALLY raw deal he got here. If I were this kid's superior I stick him on the desk pending an IA.

(Original post here, along with some interesting comments.) No probable cause, and not even an underlying crime. Just a bunch of mutually disputed hot air. An argument over whether feet touched and a hand was seen.

So the allegations wouldn't support the arrest, even if a charge was theoretically possible. (It is not a crime in Minnesota to signal a willingness to have sex, but even if it was, there's no clear evidence of a signal.)

Were I a paranoid sort, I might wonder whether this was some kind of political setup, and Craig was made to go along with it. (There's no way to know.)

UPDATE: Via Glenn Reynolds, here's Mark Steyn's reaction to hearing the tape:

after listening to the post-arrest audio tape of Craig's interview with police Sgt. Dave Karsnia, I find myself inclining toward Henry Kissinger's pronouncement on the Iran/Iraq war: It's a shame they both can't lose. As it happens, I passed by the very same men's room at the Lindbergh Terminal only a couple of months ago. I didn't go in, however. My general philosophy on public restrooms was summed up by the late Derek Jackson, the Oxford professor and jockey, in his advice to a Frenchman about to visit Britain. "Never go to a public lavatory in London," warned Professor Jackson. "I always pee in the street. You may be fined a few pounds for committing a nuisance, but in a public lavatory you risk two years in prison because a policeman in plain clothes says you smiled at him."
Steyn thinks he's guilty, and he is guilty for the simple reason that he pleaded guilty.

But wouldn't the mere accusation have been enough?

Styen doesn't think the "hypocrisy" is quite as sinful as so many people seem to think, and neither do I.

But I have to admit, I have a bit of a problem in seeing the immorality of exchanging signals. At most, that's what happened here.

For the umpteenth time, where's the sex?

Or don't things like that matter anymore? It seems to me that to condemn Craig for public sex, there has to be more than a feeling of a signaling. And more than just a signal for a sexual proposition, but a signal for a proposition to engage in public sex. I say this as someone who has been propositioned repeatedly, and asked to go somewhere in private. If someone winked at me in a bathroom, or tapped me on the foot, even if I thought the person was cruising, I wouldn't necessarily assume it meant here and now. A signal of willingness to have sex is not public sex.

And what, precisely, is a signal? A tap of the foot? A wink of the eye? A crooking of the finger? A nod of the head? This is not trivial nitpicking if people are to be arrested for signals.

But this is all academic. (In that regard, I will state now that the bathrooms at UC Berkeley, where I attended college, were notorious for T-room trade, and I never had sex in them. Does that make me a moral conservative?)

AND ANOTHER WHAT IF: Suppose that a man wanted to have sex with a sexily-attired woman, who turned out to be working undercover as police officer. Would a "signal" (even a tap on the foot or finger-crooking) be enough to make an arrest? I don't work as a vice officer, but I doubt it. My memory is that there has to be a clear proposition to do something illegal.

Otherwise, the arrested "Johns" would be irate.

(Even though they're "guilty.")

posted by Eric on 09.01.07 at 03:21 PM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/5468






Comments

The Clinton defense might have worked if run correctly...

"I did not have sex with that man."

M. Simon   ·  September 1, 2007 10:47 PM

Larry Flynt's money gets results again.

He got Gingrich during the impeachment hearings. He almost got Hyde.

He got Foley, in a beautifully choreographed sting. The only reason this wasn't held until just before the election is the timing was dictated by the court, and the guilty plea.

David Dreier has been in Flynt's sights for years. Beautiful young men keep showing up and flirting with Dreier at public and semi-public events - while long lenses wait for a good reaction. http://www.larryflynt.com/notebook.php?id=88

A4J   ·  September 2, 2007 12:42 AM

I'M INTRODUCING A LINE OF POLITICAL CHARGED OUTERWEAR. FIRST IN THE LINE WILL BE, SCREW DIPLOMACY OUTERWEAR. PLEASE CONTACT ME AT ANOZZFAN26@AIM.COM IF YOU ARE SO INTERESTED

FRANK QUARTIER   ·  September 2, 2007 09:34 AM

In politics, an accusation seems to be enough.

(Especially when Republicans are accused.)

Please, just stop with this pathetic victim nonsense. The only people initially asking Craig to step down were Republicans. The people who eventually forced Craig out were Republicans. The Presidential candidate who fired Craig from his campaign, calling him "disgusting", was a Republican.

Your party won the White House in 2004 on the strength of homophobic Ohioans. Stop trying to pass the buck: Craig and his unceremonious exit is all you.

You own it.

Blue Texan   ·  September 2, 2007 10:48 AM

Your party won the White House in 2004 on the strength of homophobic Ohioans.

Geez. And all this time I thought Diebold rigged the election!!

Twn   ·  September 2, 2007 12:19 PM

And *I* thought it was because of the voter-fraud scare tactics designed to intimidate such well-known homo-lovin' groups as African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans and Undocumented-Americans.

jason   ·  September 2, 2007 09:19 PM

That fact that I can't stand the Democrats more than I can't stand the Republicans does not make me responsible for the Republicans. And the idea of making all sex outside of marriage "left wing" is just insane. Homosexuality becomes leftist, pornography becomes leftist, Playboy becomes leftist, philandering becomes leftist, what next? Will masturbation become leftist? This can only end in disaster for the GOP.

For years I have been asking a very simple question: Tell me where it is engraved in granite that if you are a homosexual, you have to be a socialist?

I think some Republicans want that to be engraved in the GOP platform. What are they smoking?

Eric Scheie   ·  September 2, 2007 10:06 PM

"[W]hat next? Will masturbation become leftist?"

If you're ambidextrous, would that make you bipartisan?

nobody important   ·  September 4, 2007 10:22 AM

Post a comment

You may use basic HTML for formatting.





Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)



September 2007
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30            

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits