Senator Craig and practical epistomology

[nancylebov]

Craig, who's been accused of soliciting sex from an undercover police officer, says""I should have had the advice of counsel in resolving this matter," he said. "In hindsight, I should not have pled guilty. I was trying to handle this matter myself quickly and expeditiously."

The police are legally permitted to lie to get confessions, and a good bit of the public agrees with the policy.

While yet another Republican sex scandal is still fun, I'm forced to conclude that I don't know any more about Craig's sex life than I did before I'd heard his name.

I could hope that he'll push for better procedures in handling suspects, but I'm not counting on it.

If it hadn't been for Illuminatus!, I might have been a normal person. Ok, a relatively normal person.

Comments

[fidelioscabinet.livejournal.com]

Like you, I'm for better handling of suspects, but I don't think that was the problem here. I think, whether he was actually misbehaving or not, Sentaro Craig was so scared of geting connected with this thing (he'd already been the subject of a lengthy piece of investigative journalism on the topic: Is Our Senator Gay?) that he panicked. I find it impossible to believe that a US Senator didn't know a lawyer would be useful here--it seems to me more that he was running in blind fear and was afraid to say anything to anyone. The feeble excuses he making now are the sort of thing a lawyer would have used to get a case like this trashed in court, since the had no actual spoken evidence of a proposition, or actual sexual act or attempted act to bring forward. Coming from a lawyer, they'd have given a judge reason to be careful; coming from Craig after h's entered a guilty plea, they look like a man in denial.

[madfilkentist]

Leaving aside the point that Senator Craig would have used the same club to bash others, the case against him is absurd. I have to agree that he panicked in a stupid hope to avoid publicity.

But as far as the merits of the case are concerned, the Democrats who are screaming moralistically -- and assuring us that this is somehow different from going after Bill Clinton's affairs -- are the most pathetic aspect of the show.

[holzman.livejournal.com]

It's worth noting that Senator Craig does not say "The police lied to obtain my confession," he says "The police misconstrued my actions."

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

Which Democrats are going after this? I have not heard of any Senators or Representatives moralizing about this on or off the congressional floor. Everything I've heard is the usual barracuda like behavior of the press talking to itself trying to decide if they can bring down a Senator.

[madfilkentist]

I was referring to bloggers (not Nancy) and other commentators who are generally pro-Democratic, not to elected officials. Sorry, should have been clearer.

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

The account the arresting officer gave was detailed, and he had evidently bee quite prepared to testify to it under oath. I don't *know* any more than I did, but on the whole I think it's probably accurate. I wouldn't convict him based on it, nor even vote based on it (irrelevant since I'm not in his state, nor would my vote tend to be affected by a consensual sex scandal anyhow), but I do think it's more likely than not.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

People can panic when they're accused, whether the accusations are true or false. I would think people are more likely to panic at a true accusation, but I don't know how much more likely it is.

[metahacker.livejournal.com]

Surely I would think the person who is uncomfortable with his own sexuality is the *most* pathetic aspect of the show?

What makes the case against him "absurd"?

[avram]

And, again, who would that be?

[avram]

When did you hear his name?

Craig made headlines way back in 1982, with the Congressional page sex scandal. Some pages claimed that there were Reps and Senators pressuring pages into having sex and sharing drugs with them. No names were given, but Craig preemptively denied involvement, saying that there were always rumors and accusations of homosexual activity around unmarried men like himself. Five years later he married, and adopted his wife's three children from a previous marriage.

Late last year a man anonymously claimed to have had sex with Craig in a bathroom in Washington DC's Union Station in 2004. The Idaho Stateman found another couple of men who claimed that Craig had made advances towards them.

So now you still don't really know more about Craig's sex life than before. But maybe you understand the context for the rumors.

[avram]

If Gary's talking about the legal case, he's right, it is absurd. There's no reason for cops to be hanging out in bathrooms entrapping gay men. And even if we grant that the state has a legitimate interest in banning men from flirting in bathrooms, the actual case against Craig is weak, outside of the confession.

From David Bellamy

[(Anonymous)]

Nancy, your Illuminatus link does not lead anywhere. Is there a typo in it?

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

Aside from the matter of "who?", my least favorite aspect is entrapment by police officers. How about waiting until a non-police person makes a complaint against someone in particular?

Re: From David Bellamy

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

Yes. It's corrected now. Thanks for letting me know.

[womzilla.livejournal.com]

There's corroborating evidence--not in this particular case, but about Craig's penchant for mens' room hook-ups. Sure, it could all be false, but the odds seem small.

I suspect Sen. Craig won't be pushing for much of anything in the future--the right wing has turned on him ferociously.

[womzilla.livejournal.com]

Panic for two months solid? He was arrested on June 11 and plead guilty on August 8.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

What democrats? Would that be Trent Lott, John McCain, Norm Coleman or Mitt Romney?

How about Michelle Malkin, Hugh Hewitt, Sean Hannity, or Tucker Carlson.

Those Democrats?

One might stretch and CREW is "democratic" but they make a good point, The Senate ethics manual warns against "improper conduct which may reflect upon the Senate," and CREW argues in their complaint that Sen. Craig clearly crossed the line. As Melanie Sloan, the group's executive director, put it, "If pleading guilty to charges stemming from an attempt to solicit an undercover officer in a public restroom is not conduct that reflects poorly upon the Senate, what is?"

The difference here is 1: He pled guilty. 2: There is another charge which was dropped (though if he recants his plea, it's on the table again). That charge was, something like, "Gross indecency" for staring through the crack in the stall for two-minutes..

And the comparison to Clinton, while expected, is farcial. Clinton didn't hit on a random stranger in a public place. Whatver indiscretions he may have committed were (though there is a power imbalance which makes it problematic) consensual, private, and not done in a place where other people couldn't avoid them.

What the "Democrats" are addressing is the hypocrisy. That Craig spent a lot of rhetoric railing against the evil homosexuals; and their libertine ways. He also spent a lot of time actually trying to pass laws which make it more likely for people who are crusing men's rooms to get arrested.

Those are public aspects of his actions, and his, apparently not so, private activities are relevant to those.

You could go to Making Light and see the sorts of arguments "Liberals" are actually having about the subject.

TK

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

I have mixed opinions about the lying to suspects thing.

But I'm a professional interrogator.

Here's the official line, a guilty person will fall for the lies, because they exploit his fears.

The innocent person won't, because he knows that the things claimed (the victims blood on his clothes, etc.) are false.

Used with care, the information which is collected will be true.

The problem I have with it, is that it seems, to me, to border on coercion.

Combined with other techniques, it most certain can be coercive.

When you add the lack of knowledge most people have about how to deal with the police, it's a heavy-handed tool, and I don't like it.

TK

[stevemb.livejournal.com]

"Craig spent a lot of rhetoric railing against the evil homosexuals; and their libertine ways"

Which now seems to demonstrate more projection than the Cannes Film Festival.