Sen. Craig’s easy, face-saving lies
Senator Craig resigned on Saturday, or should I say “resigned”, because Tuesday he called a mulligan. But in his Saturday speech…politicians always dispense easy, face-saving lies in these situations—”spending time with my family”—but it’s part of the script and everyone knows it and expects it. But reading his “resignation” speech on Saturday, it’s interesting what Craig is saying about his priorities:
…to pursue my legal options, as I continue to serve Idaho, would be an unwanted and unfair distraction of my job and for my Senate colleagues. These are serious times of war and of conflict — times that deserve the Senate’s and the full nation’s attention.
There are many challenges facing Idaho that I am currently involved in. And the people of Idaho deserve a senator who can devote 100 percent of his time and effort to the critical issues of our state and of our nation.
So essentially, by changing his mind, he’s decided his reputation is more important than the people of Idaho, the Senate, times of war and conflict, and the full nation’s attention. It’s like he had a press conference a few days later and said, “I went home and looked at my family, and you know, I don’t even like them very much.”
September 5th, 2007 17:05
I guess he figured since Minneapolis is home to Prince, what harm would there be in acting like a Queen…
September 6th, 2007 07:38
Can someone explain Idaho law to me? [quote]Craig was arrested on June 11 by an undercover police officer in a Minneapolis airport men’s room who said the senator had engaged in conduct “often used by persons communicating a desire to engage in sexual conduct.”[endquote]
If Craig had approached a women at the bar and said, “Hey, babe, I think you’re hot. Wanna go to my place and get it on?” Would he have been arrested?
I thought sodomy laws were struck down nation-wide a few years ago. So, what’s being criminalized here? Is it seeking sex? I mean, who doesn’t seek sex. Or, is it seeking homosexual sex? What makes his behavior particularly indecent? The act or the bias of the arresting officer? I haven’t heard any mention of money for sex here.
I also find it sad, that Craig’s statements are “I’m not gay” rather than “I didn’t commit an indecent act”. He wasn’t arrested for being gay… yet that’s what he feels the need to defend.
Sad.
September 6th, 2007 08:28
It’s public sex, which is generally illegal. If you went three barstools down and got it on, that’d probably be illegal too. It’s not that guys were just talking about sex in the bathrooms, they were actually doing it. The cop was there specifically to stop that behavior.
“But he didn’t actually have sex”…okay, but you don’t actually have to get naked with a prostitute to be arrested for solicitation, either. The cop’s point of view would be that, if Craig had found an interested party rather than an undercover cop, shortly thereafter there’d be blowjobs or whathaveyou going on in the restroom. Just imagine if you’re waiting for a flight with your kid and go into the bathroom and you hear that going on in a stall. I’m fine with that being illegal.
September 7th, 2007 10:37
Yeah, I’m fine with public sex being illegal as well. I’m sure I don’t understand the ‘code’ for soliciting favors in the men’s room. It seems to me that if the cop actually entered the other stall, then that is the point it transits from consensual conversation to illegal intent to act. With prostitution my take (from watching TV, anyway) is that it’s the fee-for-service that’s illegal. If money is discussed, then it amounts to prostitution. If it’s not discussed it’s consensual sex and not illegal, provided you do the act privately.
I’m don’t object to a cop being there to discourage behavior by entering into these ‘conversations’ and then springing a surprise on the potential perpetrators. I just don’t see how the ‘conversation’ is illegal. If a cop heard a man and a woman at the bar agree to tear of their cloths and make it like ferrets on the table nearby, you still can’t arrest them until they start to act… can you?
September 7th, 2007 11:55
Hum, I see your point. Well, no, he couldn’t, unless he was sure the crime was imminent. If he heard this, then they got up, went to a table, and started removing clothes—I think he could arrest them (or, I dunno, at least have cause to stop them) even before they got to a state of undress you could call indecent. hmmm but you’re right, there’s an argument to be made there…
Well I dunno, more extreme example. A cop overhears a guy say “I’m gonna go rob that bank,” sees the guy has a concealed weapon, and then starts walking towards the bank. I suppose at the very least he could be detained, but arrested for intent to rob the bank? hrm not sure.
Anyway. This reminds me of what I said earlier about conservatives generally not having the empathy to understand what it’s like for other people. Much of the support I heard was “hey, all he did was tap his foot and accidentally bump another guy.” But presumably, these are actual signals for the actual illegal activity that goes on in that bathroom, and the cop would know.
And besides, none of the defenses I’ve seen have said “hey, all he did was run the palm of his hand under the stall wall, putting his fingers in the other stall where the other guy could see them.” I’d like to see someone try to innocently defend that. Helpfully removing any possible gum? Checking the stall walls for level?
September 7th, 2007 12:43
“…none of the defenses…”
Yeah, and to me that’s the sad part. He’s out there putting his effort into defending his questionable heterosexuality rather than defending his innocence in what may or may not have been a criminal act. Because, being gay is more of a ‘crime’ than acting like someone about to commit a crime…
September 7th, 2007 13:26
1) Soliciting a prostitute is illegal because prostitution is illegal. Same for expressing intention to rob a bank, etc.
2) Since sodomy is now legal, solicitation thereto is not a specific crime either.
3) Craig was convicted of “disorderly conduct,” which has a very wide definition, including “lewd” behavior, so wide it could be applied to anything objectionable (i.e. men catcalling to women).
4) In terms of general ethical principles, what Craig did harmed no one. Physically confronting someone may be disorderly conduct; nonaggressive signals understood by a few, I think, ought not to be.
5) I do sympathize with the police’s need to clear out people having sex in public bathrooms, which of course should be illegal. If I was in the arrester’s position, I would have confronted the guy and told him to clear out, or wait until he got to a lewder stage and arrest him them. From that perspective, I suppose it makes sense to have a broad definition of disorderly conduct - the police would want to have some charge to threaten the person with to clear them out. I still don’t think they should be charged.
6) In actual practice, apparently it has been standard practice for decades that such signaling behavior is enough to get you arrested, even in states without sodomy laws. Something should be done about this, if perhaps on the enforcement side rather than in the lawbooks.
September 7th, 2007 14:52
hrmmmm.
Okay, these are good points. However: he plead guilty. [flush f/x]
September 7th, 2007 16:05
Yeah, none of this really puts me on his side in any practical sense. He pled guilty to escape publicity; all part of his trying to persecute gays from within the closet.
September 7th, 2007 18:59
I believe he is a deeply closeted gay man.
However, I secretly hope/wish that he is not. He has spent years with his ultra-conservative bedfellows working to stigmatize homosexuality as much as possible, making being gay something that someone should be ashamed of and kept secret… leading many to double lives, causing them to seek anonymous gay sex in public restrooms.
He helped create that environment and now he is being victimized by the very same climate he helped create. I would like for him not to be gay because it creates a real ironic twist in the life of a lifelong homophobe…
September 7th, 2007 22:46
What Craig plead guilty to is disorderly conduct (§609.72, Minnesota Statutes); which includes a list of various offenses like “brawling”, but the relevant offense here is “offensive … conduct” while “having reasonable grounds to know that it will, or will tend to … provoke a breach of the peace.” (The statute is not quite so broad as Minivet suggests, though.)
Among other things, it was alleged that Craig peeped into the officer’s stall, a violation of privacy that reasonable people are likely to consider to meet the requirement that the conduct be “offensive”.
Public sex constitutes a breach of the peace, so if Craig had “reasonable grounds” to know that his conduct — the game of footsie, the peeping in the stall, the hand signals — would “tend to provoke” public sex, then his conduct met the other requirement.
noddin0ff asks, “If a cop heard a man and a woman at the bar agree to tear of their cloths and make it like ferrets on the table nearby, you still can’t arrest them until they start to act… can you?” I’d say probably not; in the surroundings of a bar, a mere conversation probably wouldn’t meet the first requirement that the conduct be “offensive”.
September 11th, 2007 14:54
As Christopher Hitchens of all people points out, men who frequent public restrooms in search of sex do not, in general, consider themselves gay. 54% are married, and 62% don’t consider themselves gay or bisexual.
http://www.slate.com/id/2173112/nav/navoa/
So, strange as it will seem to a person with actual neurons, Craig no doubt doesn’t think of himself as gay.
September 11th, 2007 16:56
Oh, don’t be so hard on the ga- guy. I mean, he didn’t do anything I don’t normally do when I go into a men’s restroom to drop the kids off at the pool. C’mon! Give the ga-, I mean give the G-U-Y a second chance. He deserves it. He’s a senator for christsake, he better than us…