American Politics during the Bush Presidency

[QUOTE=Alan23]Geez Dog,

Didn't you just describe the entire entertainment and media complex (Paris Hilton, Rosie O'Donnell, Oprah, Jerry Springer, Don Imis, Michael Savage, Tim Russert, Larry King, etc, etc, etc. Why limit it the the airwaves "wind-bags"?[/QUOTE]For sure there are enough self promoting media "savvy" clowns for anyone of any taste these days. I was pointing out two of the more flagrant political examples from either end of the partisan continuum. (Though I don't think Russert belongs in the company listed above) Who do you think would be the first one with cardiac arrest if Huffington and Limberger got it on?:)

Dude pleads guilty to trying to blow an under cover cop in a public restroom aka lewd conduct and now that the record has become public, he is saying he was confused and didn't have the benefit of legal council. Rrriiighhht.

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/29/washington/29craig.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin[/url]

[QUOTE=Hunt99]And given the fact that the US military is filled, top-to-bottom with about 80% Republicans[/QUOTE] Considering the fact that the Republican party is becoming gayer every minute, I really hope the military isn't 80% Republican. Neither tops nor bottoms.

Bad

A Scandal-Scarred G.O.P. Asks, ‘What Next?’

By SHERYL STOLBERG
Published: August 29, 2007

Forget Mark Foley of Florida, who quit the House last year after exchanging sexually explicit e-mail messages with under-age male pages, or Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist whose dealings with the old Republican Congress landed him in prison. They are old news, replaced by a fresh crop of scandal-plagued Republicans, men like Senator David Vitter of Louisiana, whose phone number turned up on the list of the so-called D. C. Madam, or Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska and Representative Rick Renzi of Arizona, both caught up in F. B. I. Corruption investigations. And just when Republicans thought things could not get any worse, Senator Larry E. Craig of Idaho confirmed that he had pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct after an undercover police officer accused him of soliciting sex in June in a Minneapolis airport restroom. Or Thomas Ravenel, the state treasurer of South Carolina, who had to step down as state chairman of Rudolph W. Giuliani’s presidential campaign after he was indicted on cocaine charges in June. Or Bob Allen, a state representative in Florida who was jettisoned from the John McCain campaign last month after he was arrested on charges of soliciting sex in a public restroom.

It is enough to make a self-respecting Republican want to tear his hair out in frustration, especially as the party is trying to defend an unpopular war, contain the power of the new Democratic majority on Capitol Hill and generate some enthusiasm among voters heading toward the presidential election in 2008. “The real question for Republicans in Washington is how low can you go, because we are approaching a level of ridiculousness,” said Mr. Reed, sounding exasperated in an interview on Tuesday morning. "You can’t make this stuff up."

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/29/us/politics/29repubs.html?ex=1189051200&en=48390b3b53e63728&ei=5070&emc=eta1[/url]

Poor Craig is meat now. Though it is important to point out he was not hitting on anybody underage, trolling the internet, etc. These married fags / bisexuals got it tough. It took forever to get rid of Delay and seconds to see Craig villified. Priorities, priorities.

I wonder if this film will ever see the light of day in the USA? For those that want to understand things a little better, it is a must see. For those that don't it would be a waste of time.

[url]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3739500579629840148&q=war+on+democracy&total=2190&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1[/url]

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_on_Democracy[/url]

Bad

In Senator Craig, we have one of the clearist examples of the people who are victimizing themselves to support an ideology that does not serve them well. I am referring to the evil coalition that exists between the corporate imperialists, the religious extremists, and the other people with fascist leanings. I only comment here because this involves issues dear to the hearts of hobbiests and supporters of this forum.

Craig is clearly a victim of entrapment. Whatever actually happened, the cop was behaving as a consenting adult in a series of actions deliberately designed to be private and inobtrusive. He was deliberately misrepresenting himself. His behavior was more flagrant than that of woman seated on a park bench who simply smiles and waves as one passes by, in an attempt to attract a customer.

It terrifies me that I might walk into such a situation. And, knowing nothing of the behaviors that can trigger an arrest, inadvertently do something that might trigger this whole series. It also terrifies me that we have so many situations in the US where the unsupported word of a cop trying to look good can be so destructive. I might get out of a false arrest, but at what cost? $50,000, $100,000++ for the defense? Like the accusation of sexual harrassment, the defense alone can destroy your life.

We are all familiar with the issues of entrapment. And, if we are honest, hate it when these types of entrapment tactics are used against us when looking for working women. We lost these entrapment cases eventually, with the long rise in power of the extremists. Now we suffer the consequences. And as hobbiests, we are constantly fighting the use of entrapment now.

The paradox is: I am sure that Craig supported the judges, policies, and laws that make entrapment an everday event in the US, that gets ever more invasive. Like Rush Limbaugh, he continually supported policies and ideas that were against his own interests, and that were trying to destroy him. And, in Craig's case, it did. In a presumed attempt to further his interests in one area of his life, he helped create a monster that destroyed him. It is another glaring example of the breathtaking hypocrisy and dogmatism of the people in this coalition.

My message for this forum is this: Your participation in this forum identifies you as a person who has significant life interests that are being relentlessly attacked by the this extremist coalition. If you are a supporter of this coalition, how can you justify to yourself your position, which is essentially the same as that of Craig? How can you not be terrified that you are destroying yourself?

If you are here, you need to be trying to promote a balanced and reasoned view in government. We have enough enemies to fight, because behind this fight we have the larger issues of protecting men's rights from feminist extremism.

Lex: good points in your post, but here is a pretty simple explanation of entrapment:

ENTRAPMENT - A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.

However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.

On the other hand, if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt whether the person had any intent to commit the crime except for inducement or persuasion on the part of some Government officer or agent, then the person is not guilty.

In slightly different words: Even though someone may have [sold drugs], as charged by the government, if it was the result of entrapment then he is not guilty. Government agents entrapped him if three things occurred:

- First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.

- Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.

- And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.

On the issue of entrapment the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped by government agents.

I followed the case and listened to the taped interview. Pretty clear that this sanctomonious Senator took all the steps without pressure or inducement. As wel I don't believe the officer did any talking before or duing the incident. It was a good arrest. When was the last time anyone here tapped feet with the person in the next stall? Or reached down and ran your hand along the bottom of the partition?

Remember these operations occur where there are lot of complaints for ongoing criminal activity. You don't see drug stings being conducted in WalMart parking lots because people don't go there for drugs. Stings for these gay bathroom escapades are conducted in locations where there are complaints and obvious activity. Again, the average law abiding citizen would not participate or intiate or continue in these acts and has little to fear. No matter the defense (entrapment, self-defense, etc. It is the totality of probable cause that makes a case.

Couldn't this Senator have waited a couple of hours until his arrival in Washington and gotten with one of his pages for relief?

Thanks for the update on the current definition of entrapment, Thomaso. I don't actually know what it is. I primarily remember that initially, when these entrapment techniques started in the 70's, the government lost some cases. But gradually, the practice has grown in scope over the years, especially in the late 80's and early nineties, I guess. I mostly was interested in the prostitution cases, and sort of followed that action.

Looking at your definition, it is actually scarier than I thought, and well explains the expansion of it's use.

"- First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime."

This is a mess. In this case it seems only a little more clear. The most flagrant act would have to be looking through the crack in the stall door. The assumption could be that this was an invasion of the privacy of the person in the stall. But if the agent hadn't been there alone, was Craig there deliberately to make contact with someone? Who knows? Possibly not even Craig knows for sure. If a woman is sitting on a park bench as you walk by, did you have the first thought of soliciting her before or after you saw her? I think the assumption would be that if it was a known area for prostitutes, then you were thinking of soliciting by your presence, AND YOU CAN'T PROVE YOU DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS A PICKUP AREA. In this light, it should be practically impossible to prove the idea did NOT originate with the entraping agent.

"- Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime."

Again this is a mess that can give the government almost total leeway. If the opportunity is attractive enough, and the crime minor enough, there are no honest people. Diogenes is still looking. If that is a really attractive looking woman sitting on the bench, and she is convincing, you will fall. There is a huge amount of room for providing opportunity if one must prove they were persuaded (to the point of force? Simply greed? Psycological pressure? Intimidation by authority?

The cop certainly persuaded Craig to proceed with his positive response at each step of the proceedings. A communication, I would reiterate, that was deliberately designed to be private and inobtrusive, SO AS NOT TO INVOVLVE AN UNINTERESTED PARTY. An uninterested party would never get to step 2 of the communication. We have evolved some of the same techniques with women, trying to avoid the issue of soliciting as long as possible, as much as possible. That woman has to be persuasive in her role to get you to pop the question.

"- And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him."

This provides very little protection. Possibly it prevents an agent from seeking you out in your house to make an offer. Maybe it prevents the police from putting a prostitute decoy at a church picnic. But about anything else is fair game. It is practically impossible to prove you were unwilling to commit a crime without an attractive offer.

But on the other hand, since all of this involves risk / reward, one could argue that the person is NEVER willing to commit the crime without a sufficient reward from entrapping agents, that is UNTIL AFTER THE AGENTS CONTACTED THEM.

So looking at the above, one can see that there is an awful lot of room for any case to be interpreted either way. Years ago, the bias was against the police. This was during the famous "anti-police brutality" era of the late 60's and 70's, after the disasters of Chicago, Kent State, and many others. After Reagan came to power, the bias gradually shifted to favor the police against the individual. That shift is continuing still, with ever stronger bias toward the police.

The predominance of this entrapping activity occurs in areas of law that a large number of people do not support. Offenses of gambling, soliciting, alcohol, soft drug usage. Most of these issues are areas where the law is in a state of flux, and deservedly so. When a large number of people do not agree, there is a problem with the law of some kind. The laws tend to follow the behavior of the people, not lead. Laws are passed to stop objectionable behavior, and made more lenient usually in response to widespread civil disobedience, if it is done reasonably. THE LAWS THAT CAUSE THE MOST TROUBLE ARE DOGMATIC IN NATURE, PUSHED BY EXTREMISTS OF SOME KIND. Entrapment is designed to be as invasive as possible to prevent disobediance THAT MIGHT LEAD TO A CHANGE IN THE LAW:.

Regarding changes in thinking on law, consider this. Back in the 50's or so, there were laws against usury. Police were arresting people for doing what the credit card companies now do by economic force nationally, but that activity is cheered by the corporate imperialists today. Running numbers was (and still usually is) illegal unless the government does it. And I remember that at least in Baltimore in 65, the bookies paid 700-1 on the 3 digit number. The government lotteries I've seen were 500-1 or worse. We got a better deal from the bookies.

Lastly, let's not forget that it is hard to define the crime in that bathroom. When did it become a crime? If the behavior sought between consenting adults is not a crime, then some amount of interaction to meet another consenting adult is necessary. When does that interaction become a crime? I again point out that here they described a complicated interchange unknown to most people and designed to prevent the involvement of uninterested people. This was a complicated flirting sequence.

This is key. The people being entrapped keep working harder and harder to prevent entrapment or breaking the law. What is the essential difference between offering $500 directly or the chance to attend a sold out rock concert? Only the manner of the offer, and time and complexity of making it. You are going to try to offer those concert tickets to the woman most likely to respond with positive favors. How do you determine that? In the current environment, the police become ever more invasive to follow and effectively create a crime.

Here, I would point out that the extremists take the most rigid view that the state should enforce draconian interpretations of the law, unlimited police power, and even the creation of law by the police as the situation offers itself.

I prefer that there remain a more balanced view, and the law should be interpreted by the courts to provide the least damage to all parties, including the perpetrator. By this I mean that going to such great lengths to destroy the life of someone for a crime that is hard to define is a lot of excessive damage to the perpetrator. That more or less defines "Draconian".

From the NYTimes online edition today-police are targeting prostitution advertising on Craigslist by using sting operations. If EVER there was a waste of money, there it be.

As reported by the NYTimes, Bush is expected to give a speech today in which he will state that the USA will "not accept" a transition of power in Cuba from Fidel to brother Raul. Sheesh, I guess Cuba is next on the invasion list. Somebody remind me, how much longer is it now that we have to tolerate this fucking imbecile? Of course, we are not going to invade Cuba, and this is Bush (and the republicans) engaging in more of their transparent pandering to the Florida cuban expat community, but ENOUGH! Though the ball-less Democrats won't make much of this, because they bend over backwards not to offend the cuban expat community as well. It's nauseating how a relatively small percentage of expats, most of them living in one state, have dictated USA foreign policy in the Caribbean for over 40 fucking years. Just as disgusting is how the politicians of both parties have fed into their delusion that they are someday going to return to Cuba, reclaim their property, and live happily ever after. As if the politicos really give a shit about the reclamation of their property anyway. It's just a potential mega money making Caribbean outpost for the corporate muckety mucks.

[QUOTE=Sidney]Fund the Iraq and AF wars![/QUOTE]Assuming $p100 a pop, that's enough to keep a thousand mongers fucking a different chica every day for over 1600 years.

Wish I could live that long.

[QUOTE=Doggboy]As reported by the NYTimes, Bush is expected to give a speech today in which he will state that the USA will "not accept" a transition of power in Cuba from Fidel to brother Raul. Sheesh, I guess Cuba is next on the invasion list.[/QUOTE]If I remember correctly Crutcev and JFK signed an agreement back in 1962.

Unless there is a time limit on it I do not think that the US will invade Cuba.

So far they honored this agreement.

El Greco

[QUOTE=El Greco]If I remember correctly Crutcev and JFK signed an agreement back in 1962.

Unless there is a time limit on it I do not think that the US will invade Cuba.

So far they honored this agreement.

El Greco[/QUOTE]The Bush administration has shown time and again that it is willing to ignore the terms of previous treaties that it deems "irrelevant." Both countries signed a treaty on missile defense and Bush said early in his term that he was going to ignore its provisions.