Paul Sperry: Another spying scandal at Gitmo
When will we learn? Paul Sperry, veteran investigative journalist, Hoover Institution fellow, and author of the explosive “Muslim Mafia,” reports on yet another security-undermining scandal at Gitmo.
Must-read in the NYPost today:
A number of Arabic and Pashtu interpreters at the terror-war detention center at Guantanamo Bay are under active investigation for omitting valuable intelligence from their translations of detainee interrogations, among other security breaches. This could taint some of the evidence at the “9/11 trial” in New York and proceedings against other detainees.
Remarkably, the Pentagon never cleaned up the “mole infestation” at its highest-security facility after the FBI busted a Muslim spy ring at Gitmo in 2003.
The 2003 probe involved at least two Arabic interpreters with high-level security clearance. Senior Airman Ahmad al-Halabi, a Syrian native, and former Army linguist Ahmed Mehalba, an Egyptian native, were later convicted of stealing or mishandling classified documents.
Six years later comes a new problem with Muslim personnel who have virtually unfettered access to detainees and intelligence at Gitmo. Professional military security and intelligence officials at Gitmo did the preliminary probe, then prepared a classified summary and are now briefing top officials and members of Congress in Washington. An active FBI criminal probe is also under way.
The possible new spy ring involves several Arabic linguists, some also Egyptian and Syrian immigrants. They’re suspected of, among other things:
* Omitting valuable intelligence from their translations of interrogations.
* Slipping notes to detainees inside copies of the Koran.
* Coaching detainees to make allegations of abuse against interrogators.
* Meeting with suspects on the terror watchlist while back in the United States.
Officials say some of the suspected “dirty” linguists — who met privately in a locked mosque at Gitmo — have had access to 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and other high-value al Qaeda detainees.
“Three years of investigations have revealed the presence of pro-jihad/anti-Western activities among the civilian-contractor and military-linguist population serving Joint Task Force Guantanamo,” states a copy of a classified Gitmo briefing, prepared in May for the FBI, CIA and Congress’ intelligence committees.
CAIR, you won’t be surprised to learn, sued “Muslim Mafia” co-author David Gaubatz and demanded that documents obtained by his son (who worked undercover at CAIR) be returned. Late last week, a judge ordered the documents returned — but the FBI intervened and now wants the docs:
FBI agents swooped in last night on attorneys representing the co-author of the top-selling controversial book, Muslim Mafia, as they prepared to comply with a federal court order to return documents obtained from the Council on American-Islamic Relations in an independent undercover operation.
FBI agents, who served a warrant at a Washington, D.C., law office, want to see the thousands of pages of documents and audio and video recordings that P. David Gaubatz, and his son, Chris Gaubatz, gathered in a daring undercover penetration of CAIR where Chris Gaubatz posed as an unpaid intern. The material appears in Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld that’s Conspiring to Islamize America, which the elder Gaubatz co-authored with investigative journalist Paul Sperry.
“Obviously, we were prepared to honor the court order,” said Joseph Farah, chief executive officer of WND and its subsidiary, WND Books, who has been raising money for the defense. “Now we will have to confer with the attorneys to determine what happens next. Which takes precedence – a federal court order or an FBI warrant? … Personally, I would like to see these papers in the hands of trained FBI investigators. The revelations raised about CAIR in Muslim Mafia have clearly piqued the agency’s interest.”
…CAIR–whose litigious history includes suing American citizens for reporting suspicious activity on a commercial flight–claimed the material recovered in the investigation was obtained without consent or stolen by Chris Gaubatz. As an unpaid intern, Chris was frequently tasked with shredder duty. Realizing the sensitive nature of the information, he salvaged it instead.
Garbus said Americans have an interest in seeing the CAIR documents, because they are relevant to federal law enforcement officials’ concerns about the group’s ties to terrorist operatives that threaten the nation’s security.
“The more information you have, the better able you are to form a judgment about the organization,” he said.
This isn’t the first time the FBI has turned a close eye on CAIR. It cut off ties to the organization, which lauds itself as a Muslim civil-rights group, in January after CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case in Texas, the largest terrorism-finance case in U.S. history.
Related: Frank Gaffney has much more on CAIR at BigGovernment.com. See the IRS and CAIR for the latest.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Obama: All troops out of Iraq by end of year
October 21, 2011 01:00 PM by Michelle Malkin
191 Comments
Arab Fall, Arab Fail: Coptic Christians slaughtered in Egypt; Plus: Nadarkhani update
October 10, 2011 11:34 AM by Michelle Malkin
46 CommentsPastor Nadarkhani update: Bogus charges, renewed call for action
October 4, 2011 11:18 AM by Michelle Malkin
20 Comments
Second U.S. jihadi reportedly killed in drone attack; Plus: Refresher course on American bloggers vs. Samir Khan
September 30, 2011 11:24 AM by Michelle Malkin
92 Comments
Pastor Nadarkhani update: State Department, Boehner weigh in
September 30, 2011 10:46 AM by Michelle Malkin
36 Comments
Dead again? New reports of jihadi cleric Awlaki’s demise; God bless our military
September 30, 2011 10:06 AM by Michelle Malkin
75 Comments
Iranian Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani faces execution for refusing to renounce Christianity: Where are the Hollyweirdos and Euroweenies now?; Update: White House statement; Britain, EU stand up
September 29, 2011 09:30 AM by Michelle Malkin
153 Comments
Eric Holder: Seriously, We’re Going to Close Gitmo Pretty Soon
September 20, 2011 04:07 PM by Doug Powers
40 Comments
Patterico
» Rick Santorum and the two playbooksPundit & Pundette
» King Barack vs. the NonconformistsJustOneMinute
» Cat Blogging In A Harsh New LightGateway Pundit
» Top Leftist Blog: Obama Must Quash Religious Freedom to Save Earth From Global Warming
Your pathology never ceases to amaze, Grasshopper.
Denying the existence of a comment that is right there for all to see is either the most pathetic thing I have ever seen or oddly genius in its audacity.
Like I said. You are too stupid to realize your idiot mistake and too arrogant to care.
No wonder you can’t carry on a rational argument. You are too stupid to comprehend who said what.
Frankly, I suspect your partner finds you locked in the bathroom each morning, frantically arguing with yourself about which door leads out…
Yeah!!! Grasshopper is back to spread the crazy!
Just for posterity, please deny that the following post was made by you yet again.
You know…I suspect this thread will become a very useful research tool for generations of psychiatrists and psychologists.
It is so rare that one can capture the moment the actual when someone like WarEagle, heretofore mostly just an ignorant, arrogant jerk, is pushed over the edge to a complete psychic break with reality.
I admit I originally felt a pang of guilt for reveling in the psychological misfortunes of my good friend here. I mean, what about his wife and kids? But then it occurred to me that they would probably prefer the drooling invalid version of WE92 over the sentient jackass version.
…
…
…
That was ‘effin awesome. Made my morning guys.
Here’s a few highlights:
WE82 got in one or two good ones too:
The following, though, WOW, just eff’ed up on so many levels I don’t know where to start:
OMFG~! That was just insane.
You never saw this:
http://southpark.wikia.com/wiki/Cartman_Sucks
?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Haggard
…a “cured” man.
Of course you cannot cure homosexuality. Once a young man hitting puberty has ‘decided’ (usually without thinking he is deciding anything) to go down that path to pleasure, and once he’s gotten off that way for a while, there is no fixing it without great difficulty and questionable results. It’s like trying to ‘cure’ an alcoholic who developed the condition early in life. You cannot do it. They have to struggle with it every day.
Most ‘gays,’ however, are bisexuals. So of course they are choosing.
The debate is about a choice, so it has no business being compared to the civil rights of race.
However, ZA, your side on this issue is completely intolerant of the point of view I have just expressed. Your side would deprive even me of the right to express that opinion.
That’s very leftwing of you …. even if you were right and I was wrong.
Roland:
Are you going to substantiate that claim (with a reputable, unbiased, study) or are you just going to expect I swallow that?
Expecting homosexuals to become straight is about as silly as expecting the reverse from a hetero.
Sure, it’s not quite the same thing as skin color, but neither is religion, and that’s a sacred cow.
Pretty much, I am intolerant of a great many things like racism, sexism, etc.
Absolutely, 100%, completely, and totally wrong. I would support even the most ardent and unrepentant racist’s right to soew his bile.
*spew his bile.
The protection of religion is in the Constitution for reasons that specifically have to do with the role of religion.
Of course you would. I was not speaking of you, and you know it.
I said absolutely nothing hateful about people who prefer gay sex. I merely expressed the opinion they were making a choice. It is my opinion. Should I lie?
You are the one filled with hate.
Lets see…You denigrated their emotions by equating them with nothing but hedonism (“go down that path to pleasure”) said they needed to be “fixed” and compared homosexuality to alcoholism.
Roland:
So what? We are talking about a persons sexuality. I can’t imagine anything more monstrous then someone trying to “convert” me to being gay. Try to have some empathy, please. Furthermore, think of the way society treats gays, especially think of gay children and what they must suffer at the hands of their peers.
Hoenstly, I didn’t know that, it wasn’t completely clear. Mah bad~~~.
I was just drawing an analogy about free speach, I wasn’t calling you a racist or anything like that.
In the same way I “choose” to be hetero.
No.
No.
…well OK, that too. I was trying to be charitable because Roland is one of the sane people here.
Scratch that, I can. The idea that someone should suffer for eternity just because they are actively gay is much more horrible and evil.
To be fair, they think we all deserve to burn in Hell. They are equal opportunity misanthropists, unless you join their club, of course.
Everyone chooses a path.
If it is a choice, then it is obviously generally a self-destructive choice. It is not hateful to point that out.
You appear to consider the opinion itself hateful, even though you do not have any proof the opinion is wrong (proof people are born homosexual).
Roland:
It’s only self-destructive because society is very much anti-gay. The aforementioned gay children are treated horribly and that extents into adulthood.
Unless you are refering to AIDS, and that’s really a cheap shot. What if some new disease crops up that makes (for whatever reason) hetero, vaginal sex the most “high-risk” behavior?
Not YET. There are compelling studies involving brain scans, genetics, and fecundity of mothers. In any case, let’s err on the side of caution for goodness sake! WHAT IF it is NOT a choice? Good god…
I really should get going. I need to get on a plane and that means leaving the house soon.
I am going to a janitor conference again. I am giving a presentation:
“HIV and Reststop Bathrooms. How to Protect Yourself.”
There is plenty of evidence that people are born homosexual. One need merely look at the 1500 other species of animal in which homosexual behavior is observed to understand that something innate is going on. Or do you posit that animals have the cognition to “choose” their sexuality as well?
There have also been numerous studies showing endocrinological differences in gay and straight people, and gene cluster studies.
And I don’t consider the opinion that one chooses homosexuality in and of itself hateful. After all, one could think it is a choice and still not think homosexual people need to be “fixed” or consider it a disease like alcoholism. But that is not the route you chose, now is it?
I have seen no study with higher life forms choosing homosexuality as a permanent preference.
And excuse me for being highly skeptical about what ‘scientists’ are going to tell us about the ‘settled science’ of homosexuality. Which they don’t even claim is settled yet, but which you and I and everyone on the planet knows they would love to ‘settle’ in your favor of this argument.
If homosexuality is a choice, it is a self-destructive choice. It is obvious. It is fascinating both you and ZA are in denial about that.
Roland:
Riiight… it’s another conspiracy.
As I said, it’s only self-destructive for the reasons spelled out above. They can’t reproduce, so what? No one cares about an infertile hetereo couple. If we lived in a society that didn’t treat gays and lesbians like second class citizens and considered the distinction as important as hair color it would not be “self-destructive” at all.*
*Again, unles you are talking about AIDS, but I dealt with that above.
Sh|t… 5 mins past the time I said I would leave. OK… going…
No. It’s another natural outgrowth of the political/social bias in our education system, just like the AGW bs. You get incredible bias in the ‘science’ whenever it touches on political issues.
That bias should bother you, ZA. A lot.
Roland:
Ignored the whole second paragraph didn’t you?
OK, dog is walked… and I am leaving for real. Maybe the airport has wifi. See you guys later.
Yes. You are in denial. What’s the point of arguing it? The behavior is more promiscuous (males, you know) and more easily spreads disease, not just AID’s.
If it’s a choice, it’s obviously a poor one. Your argument for accepting it (of course it should be tolerated) as an equally valid behavior has to hang on it not being a choice.
But don’t reply now. Get going. It’s just a blog. Catch you later. Have a good flight.
There are plenty. One for example, is Bruce Bahemihl, Ph.D., Biological Exhuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, which showed a number of species had subsets that exhibited exclusively homosexual conduct, including Japanese macaques, gulls and galahs. A study was also done on polecats showing exclusive homosexuality. Of course, there are plenty that also exhibit bisexual behavior, but that does not really do anything to prove your theory that homosexuality is a choice.
Well at least we’ve moved on from “there is no proof” to “I don’t believe the proof”. A step int he right direction. Oh, beyond actual studies one shouldn’t dismiss the personal testimony of just about every single gay person on the planet that says they “had always been that way”, that they never chose the way they were…something which you tritely and unsubstantiatedly dismiss as them “deciding without thinking they have decided anything”.)
What is inherently self destructive about it?
There didn’t used to be. I’ll have to check it out.
Real proof is proof. What I’m not going to believe is the people grinding an ax claiming the science is settled when it is anything but.
Yes, that is central to my point of view on this. I do think young people around the ages of 8 to 12 make a lot of choices they don’t recognize they are making.
According to the CDC, female to female AIDS transmission is extremely rare. That, along with the inherent risks of dying during childbirth for hetero females, would lead one to conclude that at least for 51% of our population, it is the heteros who are making the self destructive choice.
Apparently it was remarked that homosexuals are necessarily not “normal, healthy people” and that we thusly need support groups.
I thought that was cute.
Yes, my little Grasshopper (that is my pet name for WarEagle82) said that. He is always saying the darndest things. And then claiming he didn’t say them at all. It’s adorable.
BTW, I made the daily choice to be homosexual somewhere between the time I did 1 rep of free weights (as I do each morning when I wake up) and then I went out for the morning 1.5 mile walk in south Seattle. I almost forgot to yesterday. It’s like forgetting to pay your bills on the 20th of each month and getting slapped with a late fee from Comcast because your billing cycle starts/ends on the 22nd.
Y’all know how it is, amirite?
I would think that you would remember to right around the time you are putting on your leather chaps and grooming your handlebar mustache.
You do have leather chaps and a handlebar mustache, right?
I could do some manscaping to turn my vandyke into a handlebar moustache, but they’re just so tacky on most guys. And I haven’t worn leather chaps since a rather unfortunate episode in first grade involving a cowboy-type skit at elementary school.
Show of hands, if you please: how many of the heterosexual men remembered to choose to be heterosexual today? Isn’t that such a chore? Can I get an amen?
That must have been the moment you chose to be gay without knowing you were choosing to be gay.
Roland:
…and let’s assume that’s true. So what? Society is not cruel to the promiscuous hetero male. It’s a double standard and it’s wrong.
Why should any sexual behavior be any more valid then any other? That’s a kind of silly thing to say. Let’s talk hetero oral sex, shall we?
How convenient for your argument.
Jeddite:
Comedy gold as always.
The wife and I have a 6 month old. We are more or less choosing to be asexual lately as sleep is more important.
OK guys… I am at the destination, I need to go get a rental car. TTYL
It has been ‘my argument’ since I was 10 and observing my own development and the behavior of my peers, including their many little, seemingly unimportant personal choices and their ongoing rationalizations of the consequences of those choices. Not just about sex. I was a peculiar child. Born anthropologist.
Fortunately for my side of the argument it is not up to me to prove homosexuals are not born that way. The burden of proof is 100% on your side of the argument, and you can’t make that proof.
That does not mean you are wrong. It just means my opinion based on my personal observations and experiences is not bigoted or raaaaacist or any of the other kind of garbage the militant homosexual sexual preference is just as good as heterosexual preference crowd wants to force us all to accept.
But you cannot even tolerate that.
Where did you come up with that nonsense?
Your opinion of homosexuality based on your personal observations and experiences. As opposed to the vast majority of homosexuals whose personal observations and experiences directly contradict you.
Tell me again why your opinion should hold any weight?
And I still want to know when you are going to come out against women who choose to engage in high risk heterosexual sex.
As you are completely aware, the argument here is not really about whether or not people are born homosexual. The argument is about whether or not it is ‘bigoted’ to question that argument.
So the burden of proof is 100% on you.
I never said it should hold any weight with you or with any scientists studying the issue. You are the one saying I am a bigot if my own observations have any weight with me.
And that is beyond ridiculous.
In case anybody was wondering “What’s the one question that Jeddite would ask God?”, that would be “Can you show me the exact moment when I chose to be homosexual?”.
You’d think I’d remember a big decision like that.
Huh? You said the burden of proof about people being born gay is on me and then you claim that the argument is not about whether or not people are born gay?
Try again. What “burden of proof” is supposedly 100% on my side?
As you are probably aware, there is a benefit to society for woman to make that dangerous choice, and it is a benefit women making the safer choice are not offering society.
Your arguments really are silly, Chap. You only think they are meaningful at all because you only have serious discussions about the issues with either people who agree with you or with people who are far less articulate.
No. I am saying you are bigoted because, even if one believes homosexuality is a choice, it does not necessarily follow that that choice is a problem to be fixed or a disease unless feels that choice is somehow immoral. Those were judgments, entirely separate from your no-doubt in-depth observations and experiences with homosexuality, that you brought into play.
I’ve just decided I’m going to stop trying to have a discussion with someone calling me a bigot. I should have stopped a while ago.
Why should any supposed societal benefit matter at all vis a vis whether it is inherently self destructive, which you apparently define as a heightened risk of death and disease? I am merely using the definitions that you yourself provided. But now you are trying to move the goal posts.
I think a number of species have subsets which exhibit exclusive rape conduct. Does that mean that rape isn’t a choice? Just askin’.
Rape is an irrelevant concept with respect animal kingdom because animals are incapable of any sort of human concept of consent. We’ve discussed this in another context, I’m sure.
Likewise, just as animals are capable of killing, but it would be absurd to say that an animal is capable of murder.
That’s absolute crap.
Animals consent to sex in the same manner that humans consent to sex all the time. It’s laughable to contend that they are incapable of consent.
It is laughable to contend that they can exhibit any human concept of consent. At best, with an animal we can know that a female submitted to the male. In any case, why don’t you show me one of these studies about the rape culture of animals.
It is also laughable to try to equate homosexual activity, which at its base, is an entirely mechanical process, with something like rape, which at its core requires some sort of psychological element, like consent.
The difference between consent and submission is as observable with animals as it is with humans.
I didn’t. I merely asked if it could be argued that rape wasn’t a choice using the same logic that you put forth for a separate issue.
Good. I’m glad you agree it is irrelevant. As to whether or not homosexuality in the animal kingdom is a choice, if it were confined to animals, such as great apes, or hell even dogs, with higher brain function and thus blurring the line between instinct and choice, that may be a valid criticism. However, homosexual behavior is found in all order of species, including bed bugs. If you want to argue with me that bed bugs are capable of conscious decision making about heir sexuality, have at it.
Nope. We don’t have to argue whether or not any type of sexual desire is a choice or not . . . unless you want to. Do you?
Roland:
I’m sorry, no, I am on the side of compassion and concern. You might as well say, “It’s up to you to prove that [insert racial group] are not [insert percieved negative trait here]“
What is your opinion again? That homosexuals make a risky, self-destructive choice (Chap and I both pointed out how that reasoning is flawed, but no matter) and then… what? So what? That means what? That it’s not the same thing as skin color? So? I’ve already conceded that. What is your point?
Just to ask questions isn’t. However, to operate on the less compasionate assumption without proof is wrong. My position is the more compassionate. Until you can show me otherwise, it’s the right thing to do to assume gays can’t help being gay especailly since they don’t hurt anyone and really what does it matter anyway if it’s a choice? They are going against the grain of society? They aren’t going to reproduce and help us outstrip our enemies via population. So? Those things might have matter 2000 years ago (when being gay was really, really, bad) they don’t matter today.
I’m going to get dinner. This conversation is going to devolve into a discussion about whether or not any choice we ever make is truly a “choice.”
See you guys.
That’s not where I was going with this.
But seriously, why do you even engage the choice discussion? Isn’t it immaterial to your argument? Shouldn’t you say that it doesn’t matter if it’s a choice or not?
Would you support any less rights for a person with inherent heterosexual desires that chooses to engage exclusively in homosexual activity?
Corkie:
Goodnight dude.
zeroangel, there’s nothing strange about my question, but I certainly wouldn’t mind if you stop commenting every time I show up.
Fair enough. I do think it is irrelevant, vis a vis what one’s rights should be, which I made clear above. But I also think it is extreme hubris for someone like Roland, a heterosexual (I assume) to base his opinion on his “observations and experiences” and then hide behind the whole “making a choice you don’t know you are making” line to cover the obvious flaw in his argument: mainly that nearly every homosexual out there flatly disagrees with him. I myself do not understand at all how someone could be born to be attracted to the same sex, because I never was. The difference is I am not about to project that onto the millions of others who happen to have first hand knowledge of it.
It is also relevant because so long as it is considered a “choice” it gives idiots like WarEagle cover to propose idiotic things like therapy sessions to try to turn them straight.
Corkie:
Don’t get me wrong. I just don’t have the time tonight. On business travel and I don’t want to get into a long discussion right now.
I agree with Chap, though, it’s a fair point, and I agree with his post 100%. OK, finally done with all my emails, me and my coworker are going for dinner. See you guys.
But obviously you ARE willing to project your beliefs about other sexual desires onto others that were born with such desires.
corkie,
Please elaborate as to why you feel that way.
Because I think you want people with certain sexual desires to deliberately suppress such desires rather than act on them. Am I wrong?
If it involves a party unwilling or unable to consent, then yes. But that is not about projecting beliefs. That is about protecting the innocent.
And in any case, the statement you quoted had nothing to do with projecting one’s beliefs about the rightness or wrongness (inherent or practical) of a particular sexual desire. It had to do with projecting one’s beliefs as to the origin of a sexual desire that is outside the realm of one’s experience.
Regardless of why you want someone to deliberately suppress their sexual desires, it is safe to say that you want certain individuals to suppress their sexual desires.
It’s also safe to say that you believe that such suppression should occur regardless of the origins of such individual’s sexual desires (whether it be congenital or otherwise).
I also assume that you have an irrational definition of consent.
…and? Your feelings about my definition of consent aside, I assume (hope) there is an actual point coming soon. Unless your point us that homosexuality is morally equivalent to pedophilia or rape, in which case we may as well stop here.
And if your point is to draw some superficial gotcha analogy between me thinking people should not be allowed to rape and Roland thinking that he knows better than a gay person how a gay person becomes gay, then I guess we may as well stop here too.
How can you toss aside your definition of consent when you’re relying on that so heavily to project your beliefs regarding those that should suppress their sexual desires? Why do you think the definition of consent is so trivial in such circumstances?
This has nothing to do with moral equivalence.
I’m not tossing away anything. I am wondering what your point vis a vis homosexuality is. Why is consent relevant? Or at least why is it particularly relevant with respect to homosexuality.
I don’t find it particularly useful to argue over the definition of consent if it really has no relevance as to whether homosexuality is congenital or whether it is moral or whether DADT is sound policy.
This has everything to do with regulations regarding someone’s sexual activity whether or not such activity is based on actual sexual desires and regardless of whether or not such sexual desires are congenital or not.
You admit that you support such regulation given a set of circumstances which you have only vaguely defined. Frankly, I’d like to find out exactly how you would narrow such circumstances if pressed to do so. In other words, I’m wondering how exactly you define consent? Hopefully, you can now clearly see the relevance.
I am not going to engage in a philosophical debate about the meaning of consent until you actually state, clearly, why you think it is relevant to homosexuality in general or DADT in specific. Don’t tippy toe. Don’t assume I can see the relevance. Because the only thing I have been able to glean from your posts is that you posit that DADT is a regulation of sexual activity in the same sense that a rape statute is.
What the heck does that mean? To those with certain sexual desires you’re damn right the “sense” is the same. If you can’t grasp this concept, then feel free to disengage. However, don’t be surprised (and remember this exchange) when such legal tactics are initiated someday.
Bulls**t it is. The act of homosexuality is not, in and of itself, the violation of any person. Rape, by definition, is. One is free to desire to rape anybody, and in fact there is a thriving simulated rape fetish. But, by definition, one cannot actually engage in the act without criminally violating someone else. The “sense” in which it is regulated is therefore ENTIRELY different. It has nothing to do with the desire, because rape fantasy is not illegal. Nor does it have anything to do with the actual physical act of sexual intercourse, as sex itself is not illegal. It has everything to do with protecting the inevitable victim of the act. And as far as “the sense” to the rapist, unless he is mentally ill, he (or she) KNOWS why it is criminal. He KNOWS it is about power over the victim. He just doesn’t care.
For you to even think they can be put on the same level is absurd.
So…was that your point? That regulation of homosexuality can be justified by regulation of rape? If so, I think we can end this now.
Hey genius, why the heck did you ignore the consent issue!?!?!
Your entire post is crap without it!
Consent, consent, consent……
like he’ll it’s crap. One does not need a terribly exotic or controversial definition of the term “consent” to show that rape is not like homosexuality. So feel free to pick up whatever dictionary you have handy, thumb to the Cs, look up the first meaning of the term, and assume that one is mine.
Now that you have my definition, do you have a point?
The definition of consent doesn’t matter?
Do you honestly consider sex, which everyone would consider to be consensual if it were not for the fact that one of the individuals is chronologically 18.1 years old and the other individual is chronologically 17.9 years old, to be rape?
Feel free to drop out of this, chapoutier. It’s obvious you want to take a sophomoric approach to this discussion.
Per statute, yes. But I discussed my reasons for supporting age of consent laws in that other thread, as I am sure you recall. We had a fine discussion of “compelling state interest.” We need not rehash the entire thing but, for the record, 18 is too high in any case.
That’s not an answer.
Do you honestly consider sex, which everyone would consider to be consensual if it were not for the fact that one of the individuals is chronologically 18.1 years old and the other individual is chronologically 17.9 years old, to be rape?
Did you miss where I said 18 was too high in any case?
So you don’t consider it rape.
You probably now realize that a flawed definition of consent negates the state interest issue.
What’s the difference between instituting: i) a regulation where no state interest exists; and ii) a regulation based on a flawed definition of consent regardless of the state interest? Either way, the rights of the person are unjustly restricted. Claiming a state interest criterion is bull$hit.
ummm…there is a huge difference. In the specific case of age of consent, it is the best, albeit imperfect, solution to a very real problem and a very real interest. It is unrealistic and destructive to determine capacity to consent after the fact on an individual basis. Will someone be prevented from having sex with your hypothetical capable of consent 17.9 year old? Yup. But that does not mean the law is unjust. The benefits outweigh the costs.
I don’t know how you can equate that to a law where there is no compelling state interest, and therefore completely arbitrary in its discrimination.
If you want to argue the compelling state interest behind DADT, I am happy to hear it.
It’s no more arbitrary in its discrimination than that caused by your arbitrary definition of consent (nice try spinning it as merely imperfect).
That’s laughable. Every case is tried on an individual basis.
I am on an iPod so I can’t quote but your first statement is absurd. Of course something that is completely arbitrary is more arbitrary than a law which makes a good faith effort to determine when, in general, a person is old enough to give informed consent.
As to your second point, sure every case is tried on an individual basis, but how hard is it to understand that at that point the damage is already done for those incapable of consent? By your standard, it would not be, per se, illegal to have sex with an 11 year old. Let me ask point blank…do you oppose all age of consent laws? I mean certainly you don’t oppose the notion that sex must be, in fact, consentual. If so, how does the ability to determine consent on an individual basis pertain to DADT?
No, it’s not.
No, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t think many are completely arbitrary and therefore completely discriminatory.
What does that have to do with the defense of the individual on trial?
Your first comment: Yes, it is. You do know what “arbitrary” means, no? Determined by whim rather than reason? If you chose out of a hat a number between 1 and 100 and whatever that was was the age of consent, you think that is equally as arbitrary than deliberately, but imperfectly, selecting an age in which a child generally becomes to become aware of, and able to accept, the consequences of his decision?
Absurd.
Second point: So what age if consent laws do you support?
Third point: It has to do with the victims. You don’t think that if all age of consent laws were eliminated, there would not he an increase in the rape of children? You don’t think the benefits of saying “Sorry, you can’t screw that mature for her age15 year old. You have to wait a year.” outweighs the potential damage of drastically increasing the chance that pedophiles or pedarists will prey on children who CANT give meaningful consent?
And, oh yeah… What does this have to do with DADT?
all right. It is a Friday night. Lest we both want to out ourselves as sad losers we should probably hold off on any other comments till tomorrow.
You’re pathetic to attempt to switch the arbitrary standard – from a law which simply can’t satisfy the criterion of state interest to the satisfaction of today’s progressive – to a random number generator. Did you think I was born yesterday?
Pathetic.
That’s not germane.
Look. I don’t give a rat’s behind about DADT. I just hate the intellectual dishonesty currently being exhibited by much of society. But, I have no doubt that the courts will dissolve the dishonesty one way or the other. Overall, in the distant future, I wouldn’t be surprised if fewer and fewer age of consent cases fail to generate convictions of individuals charged with crimes that are based on discriminatory laws made in “good faith.”
First point: okay. We have clearly established you do not understand the meaning of arbitrary. The fact that you think setting an age of consent at 18 or 16 or whatever is totally arbitrary means you are incapable of rational thought on this subject. Consider: if age of consent laws were arbitrary one would expect that age to fall in a totally random way across jurisdictions. But they do not. What is the general range? 14-18 more or less? Why does almost every jurisdiction fall within this range? You think there is no rationale to this? And recall, arbitrary does not mean you agree with the rationale. It means there is no rationale at all. I assume you understand the difference.
Second point: hell yes it is germane. You are accusing me of supporting “arbitrary” age of consent laws and yet you yourself admit to supporting some, but refuse to admit your criteria. I want to know why yours are kosher and mine not. Otherwise you are being hypocritcal.
Third point: then why the hell did you begin this line of inquiry? If I had known that all this nonsense had nothing to do, not even tangentially, with homosexuality or DADT I would not have indulged this pointless exercise for so long.
Thanks for making this so easy for me, chap.
Why didn’t you simply state that the existence of rationale was your only standard? Everyone knows that there’s rationale for DADT. Case closed.
Technical definitions of kosher notwithstanding, I doubt there’s anything wrong with your ideas regarding of age of consent laws in the simple context of age of consent laws.
However, it’s intellectually dishonest for you to support suppressing the rights of certain individuals from legally engaging in victimless sexual activities while rallying against the mere regulation of other sexual activities simply because society shuns one individual and not the other (and let’s be honest – that’s what this is all about).
Nobody believes that you are actually attempting to justify your support of the suppression of victimless sexual activities and your opposition to the regulation of other sexual activities by saying, “Oh well. The existence of the bad law is necessary because I believe the state interest for just bad law is compelling.” The fact that the state has an interest in preventing murder victims doesn’t justify laws which poorly define murder.
Let’s have some more honesty. Admit that your opinion about this would change if society ceased to shun the one individual.
Please. That is not what I said at all and you know it. I said that a rationale was the difference between arbitrary and nonarbitrary. I never said a rationale alone, no matter how flimsy, was sufficient to support a law. Case reopened.
It is not intellectually dishonest at all. I fully admit that some innocent people’s rights are suppressed with age of consent. I truly believe that there is a compelling state interest in doing so, and that the good outweighs the harm. I do not believe that to be the case with DADT. That is entirely consistent.
Don’t you get it? The fact that there is a compelling state interest means I don’t believe it is a bad law (actually not entirely true: see below). It may be imperfect, but that is not the same as bad. I will grant you (and something that we have not discussed) that a law must be tailored as narrowly as reasonably possible to infringe on a minimum of rights, which is why I think 18 is too high for AoC laws. But is 16 too broad? I think a good case can be made that it is not.
Okay…so it is a matter of having a good definition of consent. I agree. But good does not mean perfect, so some shortcuts, like a strict age limit may be acceptable. Which brings us back to the question of what age of consent laws you support.
You’re so busted.
Now you’re claiming that rationale precludes any measure of arbitrary despite your earlier claim that something was “completely arbitrary” if it simply lacked a state interest which you found compelling.
Gee, it looks like someone needs to learn that the existence of a mere “rationale” is far BROADER than a “compelling state interest.”
You need to retract one of your two statements. Which one will it be?
Frankly, I don’t know. What was socially acceptable in Shakespearean times? Should that matter? Do the complexities of modern society require an older age of consent? If so, should the age of consent be raised as societal complexities evolve?
Currently, the existing psychological evidence that certain menstrual women and ejaculatory men are too young for certain sexual activities is pathetically weak. It’s easily argued that compelling evidence should be required to override nature.
Is 18 too young for individuals with IQs or EQs two standard deviations lower than normal? Three standard deviations lower than normal? Four?
So, I don’t know, and I personally don’t care about getting it right. But I do know this. The age of consent laws are pretty weak – weak enough that I’m convinced that future convictions might be at risk – especially since societal sexual stigmas continue to diminish.
BTW, I only chose consent age as one example.
Also, I disagree with other stuff in your last comment, but I’m too tired to address it.
Ouch. I retract the latter. I was wrong, and I do not recall why, equating “compelling state interest” with “arbitrary” in that post. I don’t believe that. Poor, poor, poor post on my part. Looking back, I can kinda figure out what I was TRYING to get at, but I said it absolutely incorrectly and you are right to point this out. In my opinion, and actually in any rational opinion, compelling state interest is a much higher standard.
Duly chastened. And point taken. That does not, however change the fact that 1) I believe there is a compelling state interest in age of consent laws and 2) I do not believe there is for DADT. And that, when you cut through all the muck, is the relevant question (at least practically, if not philosophically).
I think it is fair to point out that age of consent only works one way. One can still establish that a person does not have the capacity for consent even though one is OVER 18.
Don’t sweat it. I knew what you meant the whole time, and you weren’t being inconsistent. I just didn’t like the fact that you kept slapping me around as if it was me that originally used the term “completely arbitrary.”
Indeed. Which further proves that chronological age is simply a proxy for metrics which truly matter – which further weakens those statutes. You know that statutes are meaningless if successful convictions aren’t probable. I believe that age of consent laws will be vulnerable to weakening social stigmas associated with sexual activity.
I understand what you’re saying, but: 1) there can still be debate about whether or not the state interest is compelling; 2) the mere existence of compelling state interest can’t be the only criterion for regulating sexual activity.
For example, the state certainly has a compelling interest in reducing expected birth defects. However, the mere existence of that compelling state interest can’t justify laws forbidding sexual activity between 1st cousins without also forbidding sexual activity between certain individuals with the same genetic diseases.
Well, as I said, the law must be narrowly tailored, as well. In your example, consanguinity is KNOWN to be a factor wrt the propensity of genetic birth defects. Having grown up surrounded by close knit Mennonite communities where marrying second or third (and I even know of at least 2 sets of first cousins married to eachother), I can attest that the rates for genetic disease and…how can I say…just plain weirdness in the offspring, is affected. For your hypothetical law wrt pairing anyone with genetic traits, one would have to screen the entire population for such genetic markers. A HUGE privacy invasion that totally consumes any marginal societal usefulness. However, the issue of cousins is, for all intents and purposes, “prescreened”. We already know that these two specific people propagating holds greater risk. That risk may never manifest itself, but it is enough of one such that the relatively (hah!) small burden of consanguinity laws out weighs the benefits.
Again, no one is denying that there is not a cost to freedoms. The issue is whether those costs outweigh the benefits.
And, for what its worth, if there was no greater risk of genetic defect in cousins, I don’t suppose I would have any problem eliminating those laws.
Not if the disease was already manifesting itself to the extent that it had been diagnosed.
I’m sure you could provide me with plenty of anecdotal evidence.
You grew up amongst Mennonites?
My father’s entire side of the family is Mennonite. And my aunt’s ex husband’s sister is married to her first cousin.