The Apparent Trap: Were Craig's civil rights violated?

Let me be clear from the start: I'm not advocating or condoning sexual behavior in public. But setting up a sting operation in a public  men's restroom and pressuring the suspect/victim to confess when no overt sexual behavior was committed would appear to be a violation of Larry Craig's civil rights....

By defining any sort of homosexual activity as immoral behavior, homosexuals were presumed guilty before being proven innocent just by being homosexual, whether or not anyone could prove any sort of same-sex contact had taken place. Such presumption is reflected in the airport officer's (mis)leading interrogation while attempting to obtain a "confession" from Larry Craig.

Here's former attorney and Air America host Lionel's intelligent take on the Craig "entrapment": WELL, IT'S OFFICIAL; LARRY CRAIG IS GUILTY OF NOTHING : "Whether Craig’s gay and whether he may have solicited someone before are irrelevant considerations.  This “prior bad acts” evidence would most probably be excluded via a pretrial motion in limine.  As far as this case goes, Craig was guilty of nothing.  Nada.  This cop should be reprimanded for, er, blowing the case.  His hastiness in, er, pinching Craig in this ex-prosecutor’s opinion was an indicium of shoddy police work.  No jury or trier of fact could or would have found Craig guilty of anything.  Again, why he pleaded guilty is a mystery.  As far as I’m concerned, the last time I checked, an acquittal was a good thing and rather dispositive of the matter.  So go figure. ... As ol’ Elliot Ness, the men’s room stall centurion, quipped (I swear): He didn’t want to turn this into a, er, pissing match.  Well, too late."

If you weren't already aware, all airport areas, including restrooms, now have 24/7 camera surveillance. If Craig indeed committed some sort of sexual misconduct, why didn't Karsnia tell him, "We have you on camera"? And why not produce the actual video of the purported activity, instead of the audio of the arresting officer's leading interrogation? Because there was no crime committed.

If you just want to prevent cruising in men's rooms, put up a prominent sign saying THIS AREA UNDER VIDEO SURVEILLANCE. That's enough to make any man's woody go south – well, except the most severe voyeurs, perhaps. On the other hand (the one not waving under the stall divider), if you want to trap closeted queers, put undercover cops in toilet stalls when they should be attending to more important security matters in an international airport.

So, while Larry Craig's case may not then construed as entrapment, he would appear to have been trapped. The difference is in the intention of the law officer. But in either case, it appears that Craig's civil rights were violated.

Whether or not Larry Craig is heterosexual, he has the opportunity for a whopper of a lawsuit against Officer Karsnia. If he pursues that, GLBTQ activists might find themselves in the very queer position of having to defend Senator Craig's civil liberties to be (and behave like) a homosexual, whether or not he actually is homosexual.