ACLU files court brief in defense of Craig : comments

Return to ACLU files court brief in defense of Craig

The ACLU is right.

On the home page of the ACLU is listed it's mission statement:

"We must preserve the protections and the checks and balances in the Constitution against government abuses of power that violate our fundamental values."

Sometimes in a legal case issues arise that need to be fought separately from the primary question. The primary question here? Is Larry Craig Guilty of Solicitation? However, the secondary question is Was the Charge unconstitutional to begin with. And if It was unconstitutional then his Guilt Or Innocence doesn't matter whatsoever.

I say let Senator Craig fight for his exhonoration and let the ACLU fight to Clarify, Establish and Protect our Constitutional Rights. It can only help us as Americans.

If you want to know more about what the ACLU is doing for you or more specifically about The Larry Craig Case, visit the American Civil Liberties Union Online

Constitutionally Overbroad

I've just been reading the Legal Breif filed by the ACLU on behalf of Larry Craig. The information contained inside is nothing short of fascinating! Apparently the very law that Senator Craig is accused of violating was ruled "Constitutionally Overbroad" by the Minnesota Supreme Court 30 YEARS ago! Whats more the Minneapolis Police department knew all along. It was strongly suggested to them that they use signs stating that sex in the restroom was illegal and that the restroom would be monitored instead of a sting operation, but apparently they were more worried about generating arrests instead of following the constitution. Please go to the above link and read the brief. You will be enlightened.

Larry Craig Has a Dream Team!

This just gets better and better. Michael Vick's dog-torture attorney, Monica Lewinsky's sex crisis public relations expert, and now the ACLU is coming to Craig's rescue. Talk about a Dream Team! It's nice that the ACLU is defending Craig's right to solicit sex in a public restroom. I guess it's OK for Craig to solicit gay sex in the bathroom- just as long as he didn't try to set up a Creche or mention he's Christian. The ACLU says the case will turn on whether Craig was intending to have a sexual encounter in the bathroom or whether he wanted to take the young cop he had an eye for to a private location for an intimate encounter. Craig was on a 45-minute layover and stated repeatedly in his police interview that he was concerned about missing his plane to Washington DC. "Gentlemen, I have to catch my plane!!" (Stated emphatically with both hands on his hips.) It seems like the prosecutor would have little problem convincing a jury that there is no reasonable doubt that Craig was looking to have sex in the bathroom. Senator Craig is a very important and busy man and I seriously doubt he could afford the luxury of taking the object of his affection to the No-Tell Motel.

Craig's Secret Bathroom Code Broken!

I didn't *really* wanna know, but the curiosity got the best of me and I finally had to ask a couple of gay guys at work to translate Craig's toe tapping and hand waiving bathroom behavior described in the Airport Police report. Apparently, Craig's hand and foot movements are standard operating procedure for this kind of thing and it goes on "all the time." Who knew? According to the "experts" I asked, Craig would have peeped through the crack in the stall to see if there was worthy prey. He apparently liked the looks of the young blonde Officer Karsnia sitting on the crapper and so entered the adjacent stall. Craig's foot tapping was to let Karsnia know that he was interested. Karsnia tapped back to let Craig know they were on the same page. Craig lovingly moved his foot into Karsnia's stall and touched his foot to say, "Let's do it!" Craig's palm-up hand waiving gesture under the stall partition would have been an invitation for Craig to perform oral sex on Karsnia. If Craig hadn't been arrested at that point, the following would have thenoccured: Karsnia would drop his pants to his ankles and gotten down on the floor on his "haunches." He would then slide his knees, thighs, and groin under the stall partition and into Craig's stall. The US Senator would then get on the floor, most likely on his hands and knees, and provide public service to Karsnia. Among those who know about these kinds of things, there is apparently little if any question about what Craig was up to in the men's room.

A lot of Thought

You've obviously been giving this a lot of thought. The next step is to come out of the closet. Come on, you know you want to.

And all this time I thought someone peeped into a stall to see if :

1. The stall was empty or occupied.
2. If occupied was the person inside reading a magazine or almost done.
3. If reading a magazine and I really had to go, Should I beat on the friggin door and say hurry the hell up in there!

And we've ALL been there, done that!


Uh, nope. Can't say that I've ever had a reason to peep into another guy's stall in the bathroom. BTW, is your name Freudian?


Every time you open your mouth........

I guess in this case every time you type.....

Larry Blogs

My guess is that when Larry Craig's hands aren't busy reaching into the next guy's stall in the men's room, they're at the keyboard defending himself on blogs, including this one. I also suspect that his phone message to a "wrong number" that just happened to belong to the editor of Roll Call, was also orchestrated and executed by his PR team. Craig can't think for himself but now he's got *Monica Lewinsky's* public relations firm planning his every move. (And just look what they did for her.) In Craig's mind, he's gonna play those drooling buffoons in Idaho like a country fiddle. Give it up Larry. The folks in Idaho are honest, hardworking people who aren't that gullible. They've already judged you on the quality of your character, not on the skill of your legal and public relations teams.

We in Idaho

I notice that you speak about Idahoans as if you were on the outside looking in. Like you are not one of us. Why is that? Heres a couple of examples: "The folks in Idaho" and "They've already judged you" Whats that all about? Are you another Gay man in Maryland?

I am an Idahoan. I have not judged. I am waiting for the court case to come to its conclusion. My opinion is that stings like these are unconstitutional and have always thought that way. Don't presume to speak for me Giraffe. And keep your opinion to yourself if you are not from Idaho. It is for US to decide.

The US Constitution

Dear Mr. Small Wood: What gives me the the right to speak my mind? As Bill O'Reilly would say, "The US Constitution, Sir." You're going to argue that the First Amendment gives Craig the right to pick up boyfriends in the bathroom but doesn't give me the right to post my opinion on a blog? I love the way Democrats think. Equal rights for everybody- as long as you agree with me! BTW, it isn't me who needs to come out of the closet. It's Larry Craig. I'm made from the dust of the Treasure Valley and my family has been in Idaho for five generations. It's your posts that are marked with an Eastern Time Zone...

Wrong Again

As with all of your posts you don't bother with the truth. I never said don't speak your mind. I said and I am quoting:

"I am an Idahoan. I have not judged. I am waiting for the court case to come to its conclusion. My opinion is that stings like these are unconstitutional and have always thought that way. Don't presume to speak for me Giraffe. And keep your opinion to yourself if you are not from Idaho. It is for US to decide."

This was said because of your statement(and I am quoting again):

"The folks in Idaho are honest, hardworking people who aren't that gullible. They've already judged you on the quality of your character, not on the skill of your legal and public relations teams."

I said two things of importance here:

1. "Don't presume to speak for me Giraffe."

2. "And keep your opinion to yourself if you are not from Idaho."

Number one, don't presume to speak for me Giraffe, thats self explanatory. You implied that everyone from Idaho shares your opinion, its just not true.
Number two, if you are not from Idaho, keep your opinion about OUR senator to yourself, we don't want to hear out of state propaganda.

I guess you consider me a newcomer, my family has only been here since 1938. We are just starting on the 5th generation.

The final point is this. The time zone I am in is not the eastern time zone, it is Hong Kong, and I am not at liberty to tell a civilian what I am doing here. However, my home state and my voter registration is Idaho Republican. That is all, You're Dismissed.

Fair Enough

Fair Enough Paul. I won't ask and you don't have to tell.


Pronunciation: "säf-'mor-ik, -'mär- also "sof- or "sä-f&- or "so-f&-
Function: adjective
1 : conceited and overconfident of knowledge but poorly informed and immature, a sophomoric argument

Your Sophomoric mutilation of my name did not go unnoticed. It just fits your character or lack there of. Apparently you are used to ridicule of your own name. I haven't worried about childish potshots like that since High School.


Our World famous, closeted homosexual Senator Larry Craig has returned to D.C. just in time to vote for the next round of proposed amnesty for illegal aliens. This Senate amnesty push is known as the "Dream Act" (SA 2237). Hey Larry don't be confused, the "Dream Act" sucks for Idaho and the United States, not you and your public restroom buddies! Tell Larry Craig we're not tapping, we Idahoans are not interested in taking it up the backside with his support for illegal aliens.

Homophobic and Xenophobic

You guys are so Homophobic (afraid of Homosexuals) and Xenophobic (coming from the Greek words ξένος (xenos), meaning "foreigner," "stranger," and φόβος (phobos), meaning "fear." The term is typically used to describe fear or dislike of foreigners or in general of people different from one's self.) that you cannot for one moment look at the more important issue:

Is the law in question Unconstitutional and if so why are they still persecuting... Uh, I mean Prosecuting people with it? Especially if the Minnesota Supreme Court already ruled on this law 30 YEARS ago that it was "Constitutionally Overbroad" and should not be used in the manner that they are using it.

Gay or Straight, most people have arranged for Consensual sex with someone in a public place. HELLO? What do I mean? Anyone who has had a one night stand with someone they have met at a Bar or other place is guilty of soliciting sex in public under this law. A singles club is a public place. What does it matter if the two persons involved are adults, no money changes hands, and the sex act does not take place in public? You still met in a public place and left with the express purpose of having sex with one another. So turn yourselves in, you are guilty, you know who you are!

Pretty ridiculous huh? And whether or not Senator Craig did or did not tap his foot and wave his hand is immaterial, The law is obviously overbroad and stupid. The act of having sex IN PUBLIC on the other hand would be a reasonable and prosecutable offense. Prosecute the real criminals. The Solicitation sting obviously violates the constitutional rights of Americans. And if it is unconstitutional then it is Entrapment. For Pity Sake, Read the ACLU brief and see for yourself in Detail!

It's Craig's Character

Paul: I think it's funny when you quote Meryl Streep. Is "That's all, you're dismissed," from The Devil Wears Prada?

Craig's sexuality isn't the issue. It's his character that's the problem. I seriously doubt that Craig is representative of most gay people. As far as I can tell, gays want the same out of life that everybody else does (good job, nice house, smokin' hot car, loving relationship, etc.) And I assume that most gays have sex in the bedroom and not in a public restroom at the airport.

What's repulsive about Craig isn't that he's gay, it's that he's dishonest, has exceptionally poor judgment, lacks integrity and character, refuses to take personal responsibility for his own behavior, and blames everybody else for his problems. Larry Craig is the cause of his own problems, not the "WitchHunters" at the Statesman, not the bloggers, not the Airport Police, and not anybody else. Nobody is out to "get" Larry Craig. He's the kind of guy who, given enough rope, will hang himself. That's exactly what he's done.

Devil wears Prada

I have never watched that movie, so I wouldn't know. I was just dismissing you as an intellectually inferior opponent who apparently watches way too many Hollywood movies. Your politics seem to be Democrat not Republican so you will fit right in with Meryl and Barbra.

You can't seem to separate the legal case from your own Xenophobia. (I pasted the definition to make it easy for you) You seem to think he (Sen. Craig) should be perfect and never make a mistake (like pleading guilty) or maybe its that you think that its yourself who never makes a mistake? Whats done is not whats done if it can be undone. And thats what Mr Craig is doing right now.

As a long term Republican I have never understood why ANYONE would dislike an organization (The ACLU) whose sole purpose in being is to protect Our Constitutional Rights. They are the ones standing on the frontline fighting to keep government from abusing our Rights. Don't get me wrong, I have very strong moral beliefs against Homosexuality, but personal beliefs do not belong in this case. Were Senator Craig's Constitutional rights violated by the Minnesota Police? I think yes and so do many others.

Also note that Mr Craig is NOT the one fighting that aspect of the case, he is merely trying to reverse his plea and fight an injustice done him.

So my question is Mr Giraffe, are you wearing Prada?

What is the real problem?

What most of you really think the bad part of all of this is is that one of our Senators might be gay. I for one would be proud to be from a state evolved enough to elect an "openly" gay Senator. The bad part is that we still live in a society where homosexuals still need to hide to accomplish the type of things Senator Craig has. Same man, openly gay, does not even get on the ballot in Idaho. That is the bad part... and almost none of you idiots get it!

The Real Problem Is His Character

Jchen: Again, the problem is not that he's gay. The real problem is that he's dishonest with everybody, including himself. He sees people, apparently including his family, as means to an end rather than human beings worthy of respect and dignity. Craig lacks personal integrity and has phenomenally poor judgment. He refuses to take personal responsibility for his own behavior and wants to blame everybody else for his problems. The problem isn't that Craig is gay or that the Statesman, the bloggers, Roll Call, or the Airport Police are out to "get" him. The problem is Craig's character.


You are sure quick to "cast the first stone"

Its nice to hear from someone who has perfect judgement and has never made a mistake in his life.

You are truly a legend in your own mind.

ACLU Brief in State of Minnesota vs. Craig

It seems like the ACLU's brief in support of Craig's right to solicit gay sex in a public restroom is pretty weak and disingenuous. I'm beginning to think it was a PR stunt aimed at further humiliating conservatives and the Republic Party. The Brief is apparently supposed to make the ACLU seem as though they're the guys in the white hats, out to help even their professed enemies. The ACLU supports civil liberties for everyone, except of course, if you happen to be Christian.

There are three problems with the ACLU Brief:

First, there would be a serious question as to whether stall crack peeping, foot tapping, and hand gesturing as an offer to perform oral sex on a cop are "speech" for purposes of the First Amendment. If the Court accepts Craig's fabricated version of events, that these motions were meaningless and inconsequential gestures that were misinterpreted by an overzealous cop, then it would find that they had no expressive value and are therefore not protected "speech" under the First Amendment.

Second, if the Court accepts the far more credible version of events offered by the cop, that Craig was soliciting sex, then it might be considered a form of expression and therefore possibly protected by the First Amendment. In that case, however, the speech would probably be considered "fighting words" because Craig's behavior is likely to have incited violence or a breach of the peace. Heterosexual males tend to get really pi&&ed and violent when closet homosexuals peep into their bathroom stalls when they're sitting on the can. The First Amendment doesn't let folks yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater (unless there is one) and it doesn't let somebody "express" himself in a way that's likely to breach the peace or incite violence.

The ACLU's third argument, that Craig might have been soliciting the cop to leave with him and go to a private location for sex, is a real stretch. Craig was on a 45-minute layover and repeatedly stated concern about missing his plane. At what private location was Craig gonna perform his public service given the time and space constraints of being in the secured part of an airport on a short layover?

The bottom line is that Craig wasn't trying to "express" himself. Somehow giving a cop a bl&w j&b in the men's room soothes his tortured psyche. He wasn't expressing his sexuality, he was trying to hide it. He's still trying to hide it. I think a good prosecutor can eat Craig for breakfast, even with Michael Vick's lawyer and Monica Lewinsky's PR expert coaching him all the way.

One thing's for certain, this three-ring circus is just getting started and Craig is going to continue embarrassing and humiliating himself and Idaho for the forseeable future.


I see you are also Omniscient. You know exactly what Mr Craig's intentions were, What he was thinking, when he is telling the truth and when he was lying, and apparently you are an expert in Constitutional Law as well.

Way to go!!

Still wondering if you are wearing Prada though.