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.

In the Age of Terror, Isn't Busting Toe-Tappers an Insane Use of Our Law Enforcement Resources?

By Arianna Huffington, Huffington Post. Posted September 4, 2007.


Isn't it the height of madness to use America's finite law enforcement resources to seek out and arrest people for tapping the foot of a cute undercover officer in a restroom?
Huffington

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

Also by Arianna Huffington

Memo to Obama: Moving to the Middle Is for Losers
Realpolitik is one thing. Realstupidpolitik is quite another.
Jul 5, 2008

Right Is Wrong -- How the Lunatic Fringe Hijacked America
The GOP is now a dark, putrefied party of Bush, Cheney, Rove, Limbaugh and Coulter. And we're all the worse because of it.
May 22, 2008

Hillary Clinton's Defeat: An Historic Triumph
Even though Rocky didn't win, he was ultimately seen as a triumphant figure. And that's how Hillary will be seen too.
May 20, 2008

More stories by Arianna Huffington

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

In the consensus judgment of America's 16 intelligence agencies, the terrorist threat to our homeland is "persistent and evolving," placing our country in "a heightened threat environment."

Given that chilling assessment, isn't it the height of madness to use America's finite law enforcement resources to seek out and arrest people for tapping the foot of a cute undercover officer in a restroom?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not wild about walking into a public restroom and seeing a couple using the a stall for something other than, as Sgt. Dave Karsnia, the arresting officer in the Craig case put it, "its intended use."

But that is not what Larry Craig did. If he had, someone in the restroom could have done what most people do when they see a law being broken: go get a cop.

And as it happens, since Craig was arrested in an airport, presumably there were plenty of law enforcement officers nearby looking for, you know, real threats -- like explosives or folks on a Watch List. Assuming, that is, they weren't all hunkered down in other bathrooms across the airport, protecting the public against people who might be thinking about having sex.

Let me be clear: I'm no fan of Larry Craig. Indeed, I disagree with almost everything he stands for. And I'd much rather he not be in the United States Senate. But I'd also rather have had his exit be the result of his constituents voting on his ideas and policies, instead of a ridiculous sting operation in an airport bathroom.

At least it's nice to see that, while the cable networks have been giving the incident their usual nuanced treatment, bloggers across the political spectrum have taken a step back to look at the real issues here.

Garance Franke-Ruta of The American Prospect asks: "Was there anything criminal about Sen. Larry Craig's gestures if they suggested a desire for consensual lewd behavior of some kind with the man in the adjacent restroom stall?" Her answer: no.

Conservative University of Minnesota law professor Dale Carpenter, blogging at the Volokh Conspiracy, agrees with her:

Disorderly conduct is a notoriously nebulous crime, allowing police wide discretion in making arrests and charges for conduct or speech that is little more than bothersome to police or to others.

As Carpenter and Franke-Ruta both point out, soliciting someone to have sex with you is not a crime in Minnesota. If Craig had solicited someone, which then led to a round of bathroom sex, then yes, arrest them. But that's not what happened.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: senator craig, terror, law enforcement, sex

Find more Arianna at the Huffington Post.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

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:
You MUST...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Sep 4, 2007 12:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You MUST be fucking kidding me...

Nah... public bathrooms should be safe havens for sex and prostitution.... after all, its not like this would easily be a serious public health concern or anything.

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

Cute?
Posted by: spiiderwebâ„¢ on Sep 4, 2007 6:13 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did Craig have a mirror? How did he know the guy was cute?

Actually, for what he wanted, it probably didn't matter if the guy were cute or ugly.

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

» RE: Cute? Posted by: morticia
Sexual Harassment
Posted by: Prometheus2112 on Sep 4, 2007 10:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What Craig is guilty of is sexual harassment.
I'm guesing that since its a guy harassing a guy that Ariana thinks It's no big deal.
The guy in the stall next to Craig had his pants down, then Craig starts playing footsie with him and puts his hands under the stall.
I feel that the law was too lienient on Craig he should have at least done some jail time for his criminal behavior.

- Bob

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

Distractions
Posted by: talkville on Sep 5, 2007 2:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"...... by consent of the governed", this in relation to the State. Consenting adults commit no crimes (which only by theologians are given the name sins). Slowly, or perhaps not so slowly, theological and religious prejudices are being woven into civil and criminal laws. Are ALL our attorneys being graduated from the Oral Roberts Universities?? Pretty soon Lady Justice will be donning a habit, justices will be donning wigs and our statutes will be printed in scarlet letters.

It seems to be all a distraction, and one fraught with import at that. Let 1000 ACLU's bloom!

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

same yoyo, different string
Posted by: wacoguy on Sep 5, 2007 3:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although I am at least a bit disgusted by what I have to assume (from the factual existence of a voluntary guilty plea) was the behavior of Sen. Craig in that place (whether or not it was actually, demonstrably, illegal), I am by extension, more disgusted by his apparent "morality disjoint" via his political efforts and ploys over the years as a "family values" conservative, and as one who has made political hay off the tried and true Republican "hate, divide and conquer" mantra of recent years.

Those of us of a certain age in the South know that mantra for what it is: old-fashioned, cruel "race baiting" dolled up in another guise, and done to specifically targeted victims picked on bases other than race.

But, my biggest disgust comes from a kind of corollary to the idea underlying this column: the waste and hypocrisy of sitting Republican congressmen (and of erstwhile Republican party "leaders", such as the Republican Governor of Idaho) determining that Sen. Craig would/should resign from his Senate seat because of this misdemeanor (albeit, a "sickening" misdemeanor, if true). That is, forgo the remainder of the term established by law and for which the citizens of Idaho elected him. Just resign. Go away. Forget the fact that there is time left in the prescribed term for which he was elected.

Hey, if lying to folks about underlying character when running for office--say, by claiming to be "compassionate" when in fact the intention was to be a bully and a radical and to trample the Constitution in a veritable orgy of ego--or, if using other's patriotism and the bravery required to serve in combat to mask traits of personal cowardice and dereliction of duty, there would be at least a President in the same Republican, values-challenged party who would have been asked to resign by members of the Republican party.

But, that hasn't happened, has it? Instead, we have the spectacle of continued deaths of brave US (and other) military personnel and uncounted civilians, and The Decider--if nothing else in his world of dyslexic syntax and half-baked ideas--has made it clear that not serving out his current term isn't even close enough to a possibility to be even vaguely considered an option.

I haven't heard a Republican member of Congress ask (or even theorize) that he should resign.

Funny how Republican cowardice and sloth work.

And hypocrisy--always the Republican hypocrisy. And deaths and destruction continue.

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

Bathroom sex should be obsolete.
Posted by: lamar on Sep 5, 2007 6:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Joshua Ludd: I think you're missing the point. Men shouldn't have to troll the bathrooms of the nation's transportation infrastructure to get sex. Sex in public restrooms should not only be illegal (unless fully private), it should, more importantly, be obsolete. Huffington is right in the sense that we spend too many resources policing people's pants when we should be focusing on real threats.

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