The 6/11 Airplort Plot: Senator Craig Terrorizes Indecency Cop; "This changes everything" for Public Restrooms

This is getting so much attention, by a spasmodic public easily titillated by sensational news, that it deserves an opinion. It has all the sensational and non-evidential conclusions as the events of 9/11, which actually has LESS credible and substantiated evidence than this, and will be presented in allusion to the fashion that the media seems to desire.

The Story per MSNBC:

According to the prosecutor’s complaint, obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press, airport police Sgt. Dave Karsnia, who was investigating allegations of sexual conduct in airport restrooms, went into a stall shortly after noon on June 11 and closed the door.

Rational Analysis by Playing the Skeptic

Such a titillating and tantalizing headline grabber like this (spread by Drudge) makes me wonder just who is behind this benign and overinflated story--i.e. undercover bathroom cop arrests Senator for tapping foot in stall.

The evidence of "indecency" here is ridiculous, (but typical of irrational, presumptive, paranoid thinking by "intelligence" standards, where setting luggage in front of stall makes you an "indecency suspect", and photographing trash bins at Disneyland makes you Al Qaeda "terrorist").

After a man in the adjacent stall left, Craig entered it and put his roller bag against the front of the stall door, “which Sgt. Karsnia’s experience has indicated is used to attempt to conceal sexual conduct by blocking the view from the front of the stall,” said the complaint.

NOTE: USING A PUBLIC RESTROOM WILL NEVER BE THE SAME FOR MEN. YOU ARE AN "INDECENCY SUSPECT" IF YOU SET YOUR SUITCASE AT THE FRONT OF THE STALL. (There is no where else in a stall to safely put your baggage is there? Any man who would guard his possessions will take them in the stall to prevent theft, and there is no room behind the toilet, and the sides would be too close to adjacent persons in stalls.)

the officer saw Craig gazing into his stall through the crack between the stall door and the frame.

Okay, this would disturb anyman, but a "gaze" can be misconstrued (unless you believe that a toilet cop is infallible).

The complaint said Craig then tapped his right foot several times and moved it closer to Karsnia’s stall and then moved it to where it touched Karsnia’s foot. Karsnia recognized that “as a signal often used by persons communicating a desire to engage in sexual conduct,” the complaint said.

Foot-tapping is not a sign of being a sodomite in a public restroom, as many men will testify to. That it is a "signal" is a rather paranoid-based and hasty presumption from a heavily indoctrinated and overzealous cop, is typical of modern police "swarm" training, where overzealousness is taught.

Craig then passed his left hand under the stall divider into Karsnia’s stall with his palms up and guided it along the divider toward the front of the stall three times, the complaint said.

Sounds strange alright, if accurate, but what was he really doing? He also could have been setup, the only witness here is one very desperate cop assigned to undercover toilet patrol. One witness is typically insufficient, unless of course it is a cop, whose testimony is treated as if inerrant and the assumption that one would never falsify a report, or lie (or be bribed to).

Establishment Neo-republicans Attack Rather than Defend--Political Motive?

Whenever Sean Hannity does not circle the wagons in defense, but appears to lead the attack, upon such flimsy evidence, it makes me think the neocons have it in for this Senator. This is suspicious.

Suddenly, Romney, who complained at the GOP Debate against "those who think they are holier than thou because they were against abortion longer than me", suddenly becomes, well, holier than thou!

Mr Romney has linked Craig's conduct with former president Bill Clinton's affair with a White House intern, as examples of public officials falling short of standards expected of them.

"Frankly it's disgusting," Mr Romney told CNBC.

"He is no longer associated with my campaign [oh, we see why now Mitt]... I am sorry to see that he has fallen short."

Question: Is everyone convinced this is not a snap-judgment, hasty, to separate from themselves a republican Senator on very sketchy evidence, mostly laced with innuendo? (Yes, the plea is what cost the Senator, but it was a Catch-22, for it would have been public immediately). IS THE SENATOR TRULY GUILTY, OR REAL, TANGIBLE, EVIDENTIAL PUBLIC INDECENCY, OR ONLY A CHARGE OF SUCH, WHICH HE PLED UPON COERCION? If it was you, and you knew your innocence, how would you have reacted to the charge?

IS HIS GUILT REALLY ON THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, OR IS THIS POLITICALLY MOTIVATED EXCOMMUNICATION?

MUCH GREATER INDECENCY, AND IN PUBLIC, AND IN THE MEDIA, IS OPENLY KNOWN, APPLAUDED, TALKED ABOUT, THAT GOES FAR BEYOND ALL THIS, WHILE THE HYPOCRITES IN THE MEDIA (FOX is hardly the bastion of moral decency) ARE SILENT.

Is this really a serious charge? Are they really going to pursue a Senator for "foot tapping" and some admittedly unique (but legal) movement (the explanation of which we have not heard) in a public restroom? WHAT! Senators can vote to overthrow, or attempt to, the Constitution through "legislation", but this is a major criminal act requiring immediate removal from office? WHAT HANNITY-INSANITY!! But how the Democrats and "left" love this story so they can dog pile!

QUESTIONS TO ASK

1. What is this to distract from? The talk of "recession" yesterday by the former treasury secretary (we covered it here, and it is the BIG but quiet story)? Or dare we forget Sen. Warner's admonition for troop withdrawal?

(always look at this first, and remember Mel Gibson, John Karr, and Imus--all stories that were released for the purpose of public titillation for other agendas).

2. Will this serve another agenda? a pretended clean-up of a "reformed" republican party, worthy of "trust" again?

3. Who wants to get rid of this Senator? Why are Hannity and other republicans conspicuously jumping so fast, without substantial evidence? Why so eager to rush to judgment, instead of typical defense? (yes, sometimes a conspiracy is more rational than what is reported, and it happens frequently, constantly, to control the course of power).

Hint: Even though he is a faithful proclaimer of the neoconservative gospel, that "fundamental jihadists want to kill us all", he opposes REAL ID, (but not all IDs) and has said so publicly on this podcast (linked)

(Would be interesting to get headcount on number of Senator willing to rescind REAL ID, or another key issue--one vote might make a difference).

Anything that gets this kind of media play, especially after 3 months of delay, IS SUSPICIOUS. THIS IS DESIGNED TO DOMINATE THE NEWS, LIKE THE JOHN KARR INCIDENT. Something bigger is going on here....and deserves skeptical coverage and more rational analysis.

ZEAL WITHOUT EVIDENCE LEADS TO FANATICAL REACTION

But with the overzealousness of Hannity and "establishment" neo-republicans (and "not holier than thou" Mormon and CFR insider Willard Milton Romney) soon we could hear the like in their typical propaganda fashion, and from the "terrorism" merchandisers:

"6/11 changed everything! Public restrooms need security!"

"Office of Public Security" needed.

"FBI increases surveillance in Congressional restrooms, produces watch list of "the indecent" profiles".

NSA watching for "foot-tappers".

"Local Government install cameras in public restrooms; use Homeland Security Funding"

-- Mayor Danny Jones of Charleston will jump right on this one!

"Scannable IDs now required for public restrooms".

...You know, it all sounds so familiar, from the hyper-ventilating propaganda machine.

Maybe you will even see James Woolsey and William Kristol interviewed by FOX.

CONCLUSION

The public should be skeptical and require a higher standard of jurisprudence than what is portrayed for propaganda purposes through the political-controlled media.

FOR NOW, USING A PUBLIC RESTROOM WILL NEVER BE THE SAME, AND ALL "FOOT-TAPPERS" WILL BE EITHER LAUGHED AT OR "SUSPICIOUS", DEPENDING ON THE MIND-SET OF THE ONE "GAZING".