Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Counterpunch: If Foley is guilty, it's of breaking a law he helped write

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-04-06 04:04 PM
Original message
Counterpunch: If Foley is guilty, it's of breaking a law he helped write
Edited on Wed Oct-04-06 04:05 PM by BurtWorm
This is a very insightful analysis of the Foley scandal by Gary Leupp, a professor of history at Tufts:

http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp10032006.html

Foley--if he were to openly acknowledge his sexuality--might declare that he just happens to like (just barely legal if legal-aged) boys, and has engaged them in mutually enjoyable private conversations over the net which are simply nobody else's business. (No one has yet charged to my knowledge that he has had illegal physical intercourse with underage youths. That may come, but I haven't read that yet.) But most seem convinced already that he's guilty of the attempted seduction or at least efforts to corrupt "children." The Republican leadership in Congress, dismayed at how the Democrats are using this, and frightened by the media spin on the story ("may well threaten Republican control over Congress") has decided to throw the book at its formerly esteemed colleague. Hastert, Majority Leader John Boehner of Ohio, and Majority Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri now accuse Foley of "an obscene breach of trust," and declare " immediate resignation must now be followed by the full weight of the criminal justice system." Obviously they want to seem, like the hypocritical French policeman in the film Casablanca, "Shocked, shocked!" by the news.

But what, specifically, shocks here? Congressional pages must by current rules be at least 16 years old, the minimum age having been raised from 14 during the last big Congressional page-related sex scandal (in 1983, in which Hastert's Illinois Republican colleague Rep. Daniel B. Crane was involved). In many states, 16 is the age of consent for males, and in some of these, homosexual relations are not illegal. These include Alaska, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia. In Hawai'i, consent age is 14. In Washington DC, it is also 16 and there is no law on homosexuality. (In Louisiana, the age is 17 and gay sex is technically still illegal.)

In other words, Mr. Foley could have consensual sex with 16 year old boys in much of the country, including DC. If that's the case, you'd think it would also be legal (however "inappropriate") for Foley to engage in sexual banter over the internet with such boys.

But I don't know, and I don't expect the laws to be logical. I haven't looked closely at the laws that might pertain to this topic. I notice Foley was one of 25 cosponsors of the "Protection of Children From Sexual Predators" Act that became Public Law 105-314 in 1998. It doesn't really address this question of men chatting up 16 year old boys about sex on instant messenger. But among the "Foley Provisions" in H.R. 4472 (the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006), we find a section 1470 that involves the "transfer of obscene material to minors." Does the legal definition of "minor" include all 16 year olds, including those reckoned by state law to have attained the age of consent? And does the IM, "Do I make you horny?" constitute "obscene material"?

Former Foley friend Hastert (worried sick, maybe, that he'll be accused of covering up Foley's behavior) now opines that the disgraced Congressman's actions could violate federal law, because they involve interstate communications, and soliciting an underage person for sex online is a federal crime. Indeed if any of Foley's chats were by a legal definition "obscene," and any of the boys legally "minors," the Florida Republican could be hung by his own rope.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-04-06 04:15 PM
Response to Original message
1. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 11:38 AM
Response to Original message
2. I still think this column is worth reading.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 11:45 AM
Response to Original message
3. Funny - if this was a Dem, Counterpunch would hit REALLY HARD at the
highest volume of screeching condemnation known to man.

But, this article is pretty darn gentle on Foley.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. It's difficult to know what Foley did to hit really hard at.
Did he do something illegal, do you know?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. If there hadn't been a coverup for so long, we might have that answer
by now.

My point was that a Dem wouldn't have to commit a criminal act to get severe treatment from Counterpunch, he'd get raked over the coals for LESS than what we know so far about Foley.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. I took this article on its merits
which I though were pretty high. I'm not counting on Foley to be the Dems' savior this season.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Nor I. Condi's lie about pre9-11 should be the top story. And CIVIL WAR
raging in Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. I'm in total agreement with you.
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tiggeroshii Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 11:47 AM
Response to Original message
4. Intersting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiahzero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 01:30 PM
Response to Original message
8. Ex post facto. (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 01:51 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC