Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Larry Craig Considers Anti-Bathroom Sting Legislation

Posted by Pam Spaulding at 6:34 AM on October 17, 2007.


Pam Spaulding: Oh my, Senator Craig is the gift that keeps on giving.
larryontv

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

Also in PEEK

Is Palin a Step Backwards for Women in Power?
Suzanne Braun Levine SuzanneBraunLevine.com

Bush's White House Spying on Iraqi Prime Minister
Amanda Think Progress

Fox News: 'McCain's TV Commercials Contain ... Out-Right Lies'
Steve Benen Washington Monthly

This post, written by Pam Spaulding, originally appeared on Pam's House Blend

The nightmare continues for the GOP. Toe-tapping Larry invited Idaho newsman Mark Johnson of KTVB into his home and sat for a 90-minute interview that aired Tuesday. Craig's wife Suzanne dutifully sat by his side as he told his side of the story about the encounter in the Minneapolis airport bathroom that made him a household name for all the wrong reasons. he transcript is up.

I'll give you the money quote from the interview first:

Mark Johnson: We gave folks an opportunity on our website to ask questions - and boy did they submit the questions. Many of them you've answered here tonight. Mark from Boise... not this Mark from Boise - had one that I think you might find interesting. Mark writes "You are accused of a sex crime without physically committing one. Would you support legislation that protects citizens from police entrapment in restrooms and other public places.

Sen. Larry Craig: Mark, I'd have to take a very serious look at that. I've not only heard from Mark - I've heard from a lot of citizens and e-mailers. They've felt they got entrapped, they felt they got profiled. The worst thing in a free society is to have law enforcement profiling people because they look a certain way, therefore they must be. That is just wrong. I've always opposed it - and I'll continue to oppose it. If legislation like that comes along, I'll take a very serious look at it. I'm innocent, I've been through it. It's not a very pleasant experience. It's changed my life, it's changed my family's life, it may have changed the political life in Idaho, I don't know. But, it is the question - a very important one.

So, if someone proposes such legislation to protect citizens from profiling -- doesn't sound like he's ready to take up activist arms and do it himself -- how many of Larry's GOP colleagues do you think are going to co-sign it? A bill that protects busts of people for "looking a certain way" (guess this time he couldn't squeak out "gay") when caught up in a public restroom sex sting? These stings focus almost exclusively on gay men cruising in these public facilities -- an issue right there that probably has Republicans squirming.

Oh my, the gift that keeps on giving... :)

The interview is full of a lot of fluff, but he does recount what he says really happened in the restroom (which differs from or leaves out details in the police report, or even the police interrogation after the arrest [audio | transcript]).

I go to bathrooms to go to bathrooms. I walked in that morning into a sting, that I had no idea I was walking into. I suspect every American, or anyone who wanted to listen or try at all has heard the tape of the interrogation. They know a great deal of the detail that has been told by others. Yes, I walked by the stalls. I looked to see if they were empty, most of them were full, or apparently all of them were full as I recall. I stood back, I waited, I kept looking - finally, one opened up. I walked in, I put my suit case down - I sat down on a bathroom stool.

I did not realize that to look into a stall, set a suitcase in front of you was a gay action, or at least according to this law enforcement officer. He was watching out through a door profiling me. "Oh my goodness he did this, oh my goodness he did that." At least that's my reaction to what I finally experienced. Something caught my eye. I glanced down. Whether it was foot movement close to my stall, I was spreading my legs, and uh I saw paper - it looked like it was stuck to the heel of my shoe.

...Well, I reached down, I pulled it off. My hand went below the divider. Within seconds there was a card under the divider that said "police," and the motion of the finger to the door. And I said "no!" - then the motion again. I stood up, stepped out and was physically jerked out of the bathroom in to a lobby area. And I said "what's going on here, what are you doing?" "You're under arrest." I said "I've got a plane to catch, what are you doing?" At about that time, and I was attempting to pull away - about that time another officer came up, grabbed me by the other arm and said "if you don't behave, we're going to arrest you and throw you in jail." I've never been arrested in my life.

Craig doesn't explain why, for instance, if Sgt. Dave Karsnia was in the stall to his right, and Craig alleges that he was picking up a piece of toilet paper on the floor next to his right foot, Karsnia saw Craig's left hand waving and gesturing at him under the stall. The gymnastics of this, considering Craig said he had his pants down and his legs in a wide stance, is impressive.

He was called on it in the police interrogation.

From the interrogation about the June 11 incident at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport:

Dave Karsnia: I saw your left hand and I could see the gold wedding ring when it when it went across. I could see that. On your left hand, I could see that.

LC: Wait a moment, my left hand was over here.

DK: I saw there's a...

LC: My right hand was next to you.

DK: I could tell it with my ah, I could tell it was your left hand because your thumb was positioned in a faceward motion. Your thumb was on this side, not on this side.

LC: Well, we can dispute that. I'm not going to fight you in court and I, I reached down with my right hand to pick up the paper.

DK: But I'm telling you that I could see that so I know that's your left hand. Also I could see a gold ring on this finger, so that's obvious it was the left hand.

LC: Yeah, okay. My left hand was in the direct opposite of the stall from you.

Karsnia also noted in the police report:

Craig provided by his Idaho driver's license. In a recorded post-Miranda interview, Craig stated the following:

- He is a commuter

- He went into the bathroom

- He was standing outside of the stalls for 1-2 minutes waiting for the stall.

- He has a wide stance when going to the bathroom and that his foot may have touched mine

- He reached down with his right hand to pick up a piece of paper that was on the floor

- He is unable to take his gold wedding ring off of his left ring finger

It should be noted that there was not a piece of paper on the bathroom floor, nor did Craig pick up a piece of paper. During the interview, Craig either disagreed with more or "didn't recall" the events as they happened.


Is Palin a Step Backwards for Women in Power?
Sarah Palin is a milestone, for we achieve true gender equality when an incompetent woman goes as far as an incompetent man.
Post by Suzanne Braun Levine. September 5, 2008.
Bush's White House Spying on Iraqi Prime Minister
White House Press Secretary Dana Perino wants to make it clear, the White House IS NOT denying spying on Maliki.
Post by Amanda. September 5, 2008.
Fox News: 'McCain's TV Commercials Contain ... Out-Right Lies'
Wait, we're seriously talking about Fox News? The Fox News?
Post by Steve Benen. September 5, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Really, Alternet
Posted by: Knowmad on Oct 17, 2007 7:03 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Alternet, Ms. Spaulding, or both...surely you realize that reporting this sort of nonsense puts you in the same light as your country's totally turned, ineffectual mainstream media (Olberman, Moyer et al excepted). From my viewpoint, and that of most of the world outside the US I suspect - yes, there is one out there, with places like Iraq, Iran, Darfur, Dubai and hundreds more - there no lack of substantive issues that badly need hightlighting and exposing. Yet another foolish politician caught up in their own sad sexual hypocricy is hardly news anymore, regardless if almost all are righties.

What did you expect? You must have heard of the 'forbidden fruit' state-of mind, which tends to make those forbidden to do or say certain things more likely to be curious and pursue whatever they're told is not allowed. It goes on all the time, in non-coed, usually religious, private school for example, where students often tend to be more promiscuous and risk taking regarding anything forbidden. Righties, neocons, deluded fundamentalists and the like are no different; whatever's not correct according to their 'standards' is taboo. This means they must pursue it in private - thus the mass supposedly deviant state of affairs on the right - or be shunned and shamed by their peers. Of course, this also means it's very likely to come out, with politicians being so public, and their background and actions so researched and monitored.

In a fair, tolerant and mature society this type of fluff is not news more than once, regardless if the subjects are from the opposing side. More than that is simply extending the 'gotcha' thrill, which is tabloid level. You're better than this, right?
~

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: eally, Alternet Posted by: johng
» RE: eally, Alternet Posted by: Knowmad
it's funny because it's not me
Posted by: KaptainSpiffy on Oct 17, 2007 8:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
he probably was crusing (his actions speak louder than all the words he can now come up with). he got caught, embarrassed, and now he has to deal with the 'blow-back' of his actions. now he wants his own private s-chip program to take care of this little problem he caused himself. he wants to bend the law, or now, perhaps, change a law to suit his proclivities? which is it? do we have an obligation to ourselves, like katrina victims, like families unable to afford health insurance, to overcome adversity on our own without government 'interference' or aid; or, do we offer kindness, understanding and empathy to a fellow human? wanting it both ways, aren't we, mr. craig?



he's an ass for dragging everyone associated with him through the mud. keep yer hands to yerself, play by the rules or get busted again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

But what about sting operations....
Posted by: lamar on Oct 17, 2007 8:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Putting partisanship and hypocrisy aside for a second, wouldn't this be good legislation?

Is there a need to use these sting operations? They don't work with prostitution, and I'm not sure why people think they would work on gays cruising the bathrooms. And we all know that sting operations make for great TV, but don't cut down on the tsunami of drugs that are consumed in this country. All these sting operations seems to do is target a certain type of person for harassment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Funniest news of the day: Craig wants anti bathroom sting legislation
Posted by: doinaheckuvajob on Oct 17, 2007 4:57 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
n/t

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

LARRY CRAIG'S ARREST DELIGHTED ME BECAUSE
Posted by: Raymond Emerson on Oct 18, 2007 12:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the radical right started this sting thing back in the 80's. It finally came back and bit one of their own. If my memory serves me the "sting" was made illegal in '06 by a supreme court decision with the majority opinion written by justice Holmes. In the infinite wisdom of the criminal Ronald Reagan it was reinstated. It was always unjust. The right wing always figured that they could just buy their way out of anything.

In the words of Shakespeare, ...hoist on their own petard. (stabbed with their own spear)

Yes it needs to be changed. Why can't we just change it for democrats and let the republicans stew in their own juices. The radical right and the neocons don't actually deserve justice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]