Why is it assumed that Sgt. Karnia is a credible witness against Senator Craig? 

 

September 2, 2007 -- As disappointing as it is that the American public has once again become enamored with a sex scandal at a time when there are so many other topics of importance we ought to be paying attention to – such as the forthcoming all-out military strike on Iran that could very possibly start a world war – the allegations against the now resigned Republican senator Larry Craig are difficult to ignore, if only for the astonishing weirdness of the circumstances around his arrest.  All told, according to Minneapolis – St. Paul International Airport police sergeant Dave Karnia, Sen. Craig is guilty of:

 

• Looking down at his hands, “fidgeting” with his fingers, and looking through the crack into the stall where the plainclothes police officer was sitting, observing him.  The officer notes that Craig would “repeat this cycle every two minutes.”

 

• Placing his roller bag against the front of the stall door, which the police officer claims is typical in his experience of those who wish to engage in “lewd conduct.”

 

• Tapping his right foot, which again the officer claims is typical of lewd conduct.

 

• Tapping his right foot several times.

 

• Moving his right foot closer to the officer’s left foot, until it was actually touching the officer’s foot.

 

• Swiping his hand beneath the stall three times.

 

It’s difficult to understand how any of this could be considered disorderly conduct, which is the offense that Sen. Larry Craig – again weirdly, since he now adamantly denies having done anything wrong – plead guilty to earlier this month, the disclosure of which has led top members of the GOP to call for and accept his resignation.  What few on either side of the political spectrum have bothered to pay attention to about all of this is the rather obvious fact that Larry Craig has not actually done anything wrong.  It isn’t illegal to tap your foot in a bathroom stall, or place a bag against the door.  All we have is his word against the word of a Sgt. Dave Karnia, who, in the recently surfaced audiotape of Craig’s interrogation, insists that Sen. Craig was soliciting sex, and that he knows this because of his “training.”  Training that the public, the political establishment, and the mainstream media defer to as infallible.   

 

My first impression of the audiotape was astonishment that a police officer would speak to a U.S. Senator this way.  “Embarrassing, embarrassing,” the officer keeps repeating, as if he were addressing a kid who’d just wet his pants.  For my part, I’d like just a little bit more background information on this particular police officer, as well as what his “training” consists of.  If it’s now the case that anyone who taps their foot a few times in a bathroom stall, or swipes their hand under the wall, is subject to be arrested for soliciting sex, then we have reached a sorry state indeed, a state of sheer moral hysteria. 

 

The Police Officer Conduct Accountability Act (POCAA) proposal was written by Muckraker Report editor Ed Haas to counter police misconduct in South Carolina.  In the Craig case, I think the following questions should be asked of the arresting officer during a lie detector test in an effort to substantiate his credibility as a witness.  If Sgt. Karnia refuses to take the lie detector test, the media should react his refusal in the same way as when a suspected criminal refuses to take a lie detector test – that he must have something to hide. 

 

1. HAVE YOU EVER KNOWINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY CAUSED OR ALLOWED EXAGERATED STATEMENTS OF FACT TO BE INSERTED INTO A WRITTEN INCIDENT REPORT OR SWORN AFFIDAVIT?

 

2. HAVE YOU EVER KNOWINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY MADE EXAGERATED, EMBELLISHED OR FALSE STATEMENTS IN A WRITTEN INCIDENT REPORT OR SWORN AFFIDAVIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROCURING OR ASSISTING IN THE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION OF A FELLOW CITIZEN?

 

3. HAVE YOU EVER KNOWINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY MADE EXAGERATED STATEMENTS OF FACT WHILE TESTIFYING UNDER OATH IN COURT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROCURING OR ASSISTING IN THE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION OF A FELLOW CITIZEN?

 

4. HAVE YOU EVER KNOWINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY STOPPED AND DETAINED A FELLOW CITIZEN UNDER FALSE PRETENSES AND WITHOUT REASONABLE SUSPICION?

 

5. HAVE YOU EVER KNOWINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY ARRESTED A FELLOW CITIZEN WITHOUT JUST AND REASONABLE CAUSE?

 

6. HAVE YOU EVER KNOWINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY COMMITTED BATTERY UPON A FELLOW CITIZEN WHEN THE USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE WAS NOT NECESSARY UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES?

 

7. HAVE YOU EVER COMMITTED BATTERY UPON A FELLOW CITIZEN AFTER HE OR SHE CEASED ANY RESISTANCE AND FULLY COMPLIED WITH YOUR ORDERS?

 

8. HAVE YOU EVER COMMITTED BATTERY UPON A FELLOW CITIZEN SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU WERE ANGRY?

 

9. HAVE YOU EVER KILLED A FELLOW CITIZEN UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES THAT DID NOT REASONABLY JUSTIFY THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE?

 

10. HAVE YOU EVER ARRESTED A FELLOW CITIZEN IN ORDER TO HELP SATISFY OR FULFILL A DAILY OR WEEKLY "ARREST QUOTA"?

 

11. HAVE YOU EVER STOPPED AND DETAINED A FELLOW CITIZEN SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU THOUGHT THAT HE OR SHE WAS ATTRACTIVE?

 

12. HAVE YOU EVER SOLICITED OR ACCEPTED SEXUAL FAVORS FROM A CITIZEN THAT YOU HAVE ARRESTED OR THREATENED TO ARREST?

 

13. HAVE YOU EVER DRIVEN YOUR MOTOR VEHICLE AT SPEEDS FAR IN EXCESS OF THE LEGAL SPEED LIMIT EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS NO LEGAL REASON FOR DOING SO?

 

14. HAVE YOU EVER KNOWINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY PLACED OR "PLANTED" FALSE INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE ON A FELLOW CITIZEN AT A CRIME SCENE?

 

15. HAVE YOU EVER KEPT FOR YOUR OWN PERSONAL GAIN, PROPERTY OR CONTRABAND THAT WAS CONFISCATED DURING A TRAFFIC STOP OR INCIDENT TO A SEARCH AND/OR ARREST OF A FELLOW CITIZEN?

 

16. HAVE YOU EVER CONDONED OR APPROVED OF ANY OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER COMMITTING ANY OF THE ACTIONS ENUMERATED IN THE PROCEEDING QUESTIONS?

 

The point here is not whether Larry Craig is gay, or whether he was soliciting sex in a public restroom, or whether he is a hypocrite, but whether he has been treated fairly under the law.  It has nothing to do with whether Senator Craig is factually innocent or guilty.  It is about how the corporate media never once considered the integrity of the arresting officer.  In legal terms – Senator Craig quickly found himself in a “no contest” situation in which he risked public embarrassment, whether he plead guilty to the lesser charge of disorderly conduct, or allowed the arresting officer to trump up the charges and then endure that media circus that would have set up the tents at the courthouse to cover the sex scandal trial of a United States Senator for months on end.   

 

Such blind faith in law enforcement is extremely dangerous and cancerous to a free society.  Thanks to the corporate media, we now live in a country that seldom questions law enforcement unless overwhelming video evidence emerges.  Yet police lie in their reports and in court thousands of times every single day in America. 

 

A closing thought to consider: How are we certain it was not Sgt. Karnia that was seeking a lewd sex act, and used his badge to punish when his lust was not satisfied?

 

See questions 11 and 12.