Jay Reding.com

University of Minnesota lawprof Dale Carpenter takes a look at the relevant statutes and doesn’t seem to find much basis for a criminal charge. Legally, that’s seems to be correct. Factually, it’s hard to argue that what Sen. Craig did was perfectly normal. How many people, when in a public bathroom stall, are going to be reaching under the divider and putting their foot next to the foot of the guy in the next stall? That sort of behavior is at the very least highly suspicious.

Carpenter does raise some rather interesting points about the sexual politics of this tawdry affair:

What really seems to have happened is that the airport police had received complaints about sexual activity and were acting over-zealously to deter it, regardless of the niceties of state criminal law. Many gay men throughout our history have felt the sting of these public decency campaigns, have been arrested for alleged sex crimes, and have pleaded guilty at unusually high rates in order to avoid the embarrassment and other consequences of being outed. When newspapers print their names, as they often do, the consequences can be devastating. Like them, Craig probably wanted to avoid publicity and pleaded guilty to “disorderly conduct” in a futile effort to save his reputation and his job. Whatever we think of Craig’s views on gay rights, or of the cosmic justice in this particular Senator being ensnared in these particular circumstances, it’s difficult to see how he’s a criminal.

Given the legal analysis, I think he’s right — I don’t think that what Craig did was illegal under Minnesota law. Minnesota’s attempt statute (Minn. Stat. 609.17) uses the “substantial step” test for a criminal attempt — and there’s no evidence in the record which suggests that Sen. Craig made a substantial step towards lewd behavior or criminal conduct. Had Sen. Craig done the right thing, which is to have secured counsel and fought the charge, he probably would have won.

The problem is that Craig didn’t do those things. The exactitude required by law doesn’t exist in the world of politics, and Sen. Craig would have a very tough time justifying his actions in the court of public opinion — which is why he tried to make everything go away.

I’ve no doubt this is a devastating affair for the Senator, and despite the legal analysis which weighs heavily on his side, I think it’s clear that the Senator displayed an incredible lack of tact. The fact that he used his Senate credentials to try to get out of trouble is worthy of an ethics investigation alone. I think that if there’s any meat to these charges — and given the rumors that have swirled around the Senator in the past, that seems likely, then the Senator should choose to resign or at the very least choose not to seek reelection in 2008.

Legally, the Senator could have beaten the charge. Politically, it was too explosive. The political consequences are what matters to Sen. Craig’s career, and Sen. Craig’s actions have done fatal damage to his ability to stand as a member of the United States Senate.

I’m with Hugh Hewitt on this one. There’s no excuse for a United States Senator to act in such a way, attempt to use his Senate credentials to get out of trouble, and then fail to take responsibility for it. As little credibility as Congress has, that goes far beyond anything that is acceptable.

Undoubtedly had Craig been a Democrat, this story would be largely over, those criticizing the Senator would be labeled homophobes, and Craig would be already planning his memoirs — see disgraced New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey or Barney Frank — both of whom put their trysting partners on the government payroll.

That doesn’t change the right course of action: Craig should either resign on his own initiative or be forced out. Members of Congress have a duty not to allow themselves to be put in compromising positions (and this is one hell of a compromising position). Craig has tarnished the Senate, and his continued presence only inflames the scandal. Partisan concerns are immaterial, and even if they were material, Idaho is safely Republican.

Sen. Craig should resign immediately and allow the Governor of Idaho to appoint a replacement until next year’s elections.

This headline from the Star Tribune sounds like something more suited to The Onion:

Anarchists to hold planning meeting

C’mon people, you’re anarchists! Since when did anarchists have planning meetings?

Of course, these “anarchists” are just the usual leftist nutters whose idiocy will undoubtedly land many of them in jail. For all their talk about “direct, participatory democracy” they’ll do whatever they can to infringe upon the democratic rights of the Republicans attending the convention, because their idea of “democracy” is the same as their ideological kin like Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, and Joseph Stalin — as in “do what we say, or else.” (And no, comparing them to Stalin isn’t inappropriate - International ANSWER is an organization founded by the Stalinist World Worker’s Party — a Marxist/Leninist organization.)

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has announced his resignation as head of the Justice Department this morning. The news isn’t a shock, there have been rumors all weekend that he would step down and Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff would replace him. It appears those rumors were correct.

Gonzales should have resigned months ago. The firing of the US Attorneys, while not illegal, was handled very poorly and Gonzales’ testimony before Congress indicated that he had little control over his own department. That lack of leadership is fatal in Washington, and although Gonzales has been the target of several spurious and blatantly partisan attacks, it was ultimately his own lack of political acumen that doomed him.

As Jonathan Adler notes, Chertoff is a natural replacement. He has the experience as a former US Attorney, he’s already a part of the Administration, and he has a level of competence and trust that Gonzales lacked.

The Justice Department needs strong new leadership, and Gonzales’ resignation was the right thing to do to put the Justice Department on the right track. Michael Chertoff or another candidate will have a tough job ahead of them, but ultimately this transition was a necessary one.

A gunman armed with an assault rifle met his match when he was subdued by Keith Radtke, an attorney at Minneapolis law firm Faegre & Benson:

Authorities were already on the way, in hot pursuit of the 23-year-old Circle Pines man who had terrorized neighborhoods in two states after firing at police in Hudson, Wis. Moments later, he was in custody, subdued by Keith Radtke, a homeowner who was shot during the struggle.

Radtke was listed in good condition at Regions Hospital in St. Paul on Saturday and, although he didn’t want to talk about his ordeal, authorities had a message for him: Thanks.< ?p>

Sgt. Andrew Ellickson said he was convinced that if Radtke’s brave actions hadn’t stopped the suspect, he would have caused more damage and injuries.

“He wouldn’t have been stopped,” Ellickson said.

Radtke was shot by the suspect, but still managed to keep him subdued until the police could arrive. The suspect had been charged with assault with a dangerous weapon before, and it was only a matter of time before he would have caused even more harm to others — or may have killed some one.

It takes a huge amount of courage to face down someone armed with an assault rifle and keep that person subdued until law enforcement can arrive. At the same time, knowing the stakes, Radtke made the right call. His family was nearby and could have been hurt or killed by the gunman. Radtke’s quick thinking and personal bravery is worthy of the highest praise.

Democratic Congressman Brian Baird of Washington has a powerful op-ed in the Seattle Times arguing that our troops deserve more time to further the progress in Iraq:

As a Democrat who voted against the war from the outset and who has been frankly critical of the administration and the post-invasion strategy, I am convinced by the evidence that the situation has at long last begun to change substantially for the better. I believe Iraq could have a positive future. Our diplomatic and military leaders in Iraq, their current strategy, and most importantly, our troops and the Iraqi people themselves, deserve our continued support and more time to succeed….

…As one soldier said to me, “We have lost so many good people and invested so much, It just doesn’t make sense to quit now when we’re finally making progress. I want to go home as much as anyone else, but I want this mission to succeed and I’m willing to do what it takes. I just want to know the people back home know we’re making progress and support us.”

It’s interesting how the political winds have shifted in the past few weeks — the old narrative was that our troops had failed, the security situation on the ground was impossible and that the war is unwinnable. Now, the standard narrative has changed: the surge is working, but it doesn’t matter anyway because the Iraqis are too backwards for democracy. The only consistency in these shifting narratives is the urgent desire for failure — not because of what’s happening in Iraq, but solely based on domestic political concerns. The Democratic Party has staked their ground on failure in Iraq, and they lose if America wins. The radical partisans have put the Democratic Party in a condition where the only way for them to win is for the country to fail.

Rep. Baird, along with others, are wise enough to realize that the political script in Washington and the reality in Iraq are not even close to the same. What goes on in Iraq is almost never reported here — the media has no interest in adequately covering the conflict in Iraq, and it’s up to those independent journalists and soldiers on the ground throughout Iraq to provide the context which the media does not provide. The “surge” and its tactical changes have produced results. Combined with the grassroots anti-terrorist movements in Diyala and al-Anbar Province, the security situation in Iraq is slowly but demonstrably improving.

Rep. Baird also points out the humanitarian aspect to this conflict, something many of his follow Democrats would rather ignore:

From a strategic perspective, if we leave now, Iraq is likely to break into even worse sectarian conflict. The extremist regime in Iran will expand its influence in Iraq and elsewhere in the region. Terrorist organizations, the people who cut off the heads of civilians, stone women to death, and preach hatred and intolerance, will be emboldened by our departure. In the ensuing chaos, the courageous Iraqi civilians, soldiers and political leaders who have counted on us will be left to the slaughter. No American who cares about human rights, security and our moral standing in the world can be comfortable letting these things happen.

Rep. Baird is absolutely right, and he deserves credit for bravely standing against members of his own party and speaking out for human rights in Iraq. There is no doubt that the consequences of a US withdrawal would be disastrous — Iraq would see ethnic cleansing on the scale of other complex humanitarian disasters we’ve already seen — the world does not need another Uganda, Cambodian, or Darfur. Yet that is precisely what is bound to happen if the United States withdraws without fulfilling its moral and strategic duties to leave Iraq capable of defending itself.

The war in Iraq is not “Bush’s war”, it is not some partisan football, it is the most critical engagement of our time. To shirk our responsibilities towards the Iraqi people is to be the instigators of genocide. This country cannot even think of restoring American leadership while leaving our allies to be slaughtered. The Democratic Party continues to push for just such an irresponsible withdrawal — thankfully there remain a few members of that party with the intellectual honesty and support for universal human rights to see past the partisan blinders and realize what the stakes are in Iraq. Such people are putting principle and patriotism before party, and this country needs more leaders with the honesty and courage of Rep. Baird.

Scott Johnson of Power Line has an excellent piece on how history is repeating itself in terms of Iraq and Vietnam. Johnson notes the British journalist William Shawcross’ (a former anti-Vietnam war protestor) realization that the American withdrawal from Vietnam had an unimaginable human cost throughout Southeast Asia:

Those of us who opposed the American war in Indochina should be extremely humble in the face of the appalling aftermath: a form of genocide in Cambodia and horrific tyranny in both Vietnam and Laos. Looking back on my own coverage for The Sunday Times…,I think I concentrated too easily on the corruption and incompetence of the South Vietnamese and their American allies, was too ignorant of the inhuman Hanoi regime, and far too willing to believe that a victory by the Communists would provide a better future. But after the Communist victory came the refugees to Thailand and the floods of boat people desperately seeking to escape the Cambodian killing fields and the Vietnamese gulags. Their eloquent testimony should have put paid to all illusions.

Yet, it seems as though some have utterly failed to learn from history, as the President’s recent comparison between Iraq and Vietnam has touched off a firestorm of controversy.

What is truly disgusting is the reaction of The New York Times:

In urging Americans to stay the course in Iraq, Mr. Bush is challenging the historical memory that the pullout from Vietnam had few negative repercussions for the United States and its allies.

Only a few negative repercussions: a few million “disappearances”, “reeducation camps” in Vietnam, 2 million dead Cambodians, hundreds of thousands of people forced to leave their homes and flee their country on rickety boats to whatever freedom they could find — not all surviving the trip.

It’s precisely that kind of historical ignorance that damns us — and the next killing fields could well be in Iraq. At least men like William Shawcross have the intellectual honesty to face up to the consequences of their actions.

A precipitous US withdrawal would lead to yet another few million dead: as Iranian-backed Shi’ite militias like Jaish-al-Mahdi attempt to ethnically cleanse Iraq’s Sunni population, the Sunnis would have no choice but to ally with al-Qaeda to defend themselves against such attacks. Meanwhile, Iraqi Kurdistan would face a flood of Sunni refugees, destabilizing that region as well. Given the tensions between Iran and Iraqi Kurds, it is quite possible that Kurdistan would face the double threat of Iran and Turkey both desiring to ensure that the Kurds do not obtain anything resembling full independence.

The consequences of a withdrawal would be as tragic as what happened to the people of Indochina in the wake of the Vietnam War — a consequence that is still preventable. Leaving Iraq to be torn apart and trampled by its neighbors is an idiotic solution — sooner or later the consequences will catch up to us. Vietnam did not sit at one of the most strategically important regions of the world, Iraq does. Instability in Iraq will spread throughout the region, which will have major impacts on the world economy, embolden terrorist groups, and will lead to a humanitarian crisis on a national scale. The debate should not be how quickly we should run away from Iraq — but how best to get Iraq into a state where it can be independent and secure. Unfortunately, once again, crude partisan politics threatens yet another preventable genocide.