is this another liberal hypocracy?

Question

The libs don't want phone calls to afghanastan tapped, but they want to tap into emails of mark foley, talking to a 16 year old, in D.C. where the age of consent is 16.

And we were supposed to mind our business when president clinton played around with his intern, and lied about it.


I certainly do not condone foley's actions, and am glad the GOP made him resign. But, isn't this ironic?

courage, how is that a straw? Pointing out hypocracy is a straw?

Bring em on, go read the laws of D.C. It, like many states, consider it legal to have sex with a 16 year old. So he is technically not a child molester. If anything, he is guilty of abusing his power. I think it is morally wrong, also, but not illegal.

How many liberals are going to answer this question ignoring the age of consent in D.C.?

Davegordo, two points:

1, the District of Columbia :

CHAPTER 41 SEXUAL ABUSE § 22-4101. Definitions.

(3) "Child" means a person who has not yet attained the age of 16 years.

2. Who tapped into his emails, or instant messages? Was there a warrant to do so?

darkangel, way to stray off the subject.

Well, if you don't think anything is wrong with lying to a grand jury under oath, and also being sworn into an office under an oath, then we don't have much to discuss.

valley, noone is trying to 'cover it up'. They told him to resign.

Have you heard the emails in question. They are far from having sexual content in them. The instant messages, however are sexual in content.

Answer 1

No, not hypocritical. We don't want people to have their wires tapped without just cause. If there is a just cause to look into someone's personal communications, like there was in this situation, than that's fine.

I feel like we should have minded Clinton's business because Monica Lewinsky was over 18, which is the federal age of consent. Clinton lied under oath, which was illegal and he shouldn't have done, but is a completely seperate issue.

Here's the law: {Chapter 117, 18 U.S.C. 2422(b)} forbids the use of the United States Postal Service or other interstate or foreign means of communication, such as telephone calls or use of the internet, to persuade or entice a minor (defined as under 18 throughout chapter) to be involved in a criminal sexual act. The act has to be illegal under state or federal law to be charged with a crime under 2422(b), and can even be applied to situations where both parties are within the same state, but uses an instant messenger program whose servers are in another state.[3]

So no. Not hypocritical at all.

As a reply to your last addition....

The federal law trumps State laws and he can be shown to have violated federal law, even if it were to be legal in his state/district. The states started to lower the age of consent so that the states would have the ability to deal out harsher penalties to pedophiles, the federal law still applies.

I wasn't saying that this was a case that a prosecuter was able to collect communications from Congessman Folley, although it may have sounded that way. In a conversation, either one of the participants can make it public, which is what happened in this case. However, to play devils advocate, if the government would have found justible cause and got a warrant to tap into the Congressman's communications, I would be OK with that. Just like I'm OK with the government going to get a warrant for tapping terrorist suspects communications. (This is what I was saying before)

Answer 2

Explain this to me, Nicky. Why are you trying to compare Clinton and Foley? Clinton lied about an affair, Clinton had an affair. Neither one was, or is, anyone's goddamn business. And as for the above question, I think Afghanistan needs to be tapped, not us. Why the hell are we being treated like terrorists, and why are the Iraqi people being terrorized, especially when Bush can't even keep a straight lie on why we're even in Iraq?

And for the record, something Clinton did do, something that should be your real complaint, rather than who he's screwing: due to his inaction in Rwanda, millions of Tsusi's were brutally killed by Hutu's. And now, with the Janjaweed taking over, trafficking little girls in Sudan and Kim Jong Il trying to arm himself in a nuclear way and Bush hasn't acknowledged either. Explain to me what makes this any different, but knowing you, it'll just be more mindless attacks and praises to the current administration. Sorry, don't really expect anymore from 'ditto-head' bigots.

Answer 3

What is your point? Clinton had sex in the white house with a woman who was over eighteen. No I don't want the govt. to be allowed to wiretap me without a warrant. I don't give a rats *** about whether or not the kid was of the age of consent, and frankly the whole thing is kind of ridiculous. If I like to have sex with animals (provided it is legal) and I am a plumber, does that effect how I do my job? No, so why does it effect how anyone else does? The real question is this, if Foley wasn't doing anything wrong, why is everyone being so damned defensive?

Answer 4

No one knows where the emails came from, presumably from the child. I doubt anyone "tapped into emails," they were leaked by an involved party.

Liberals DO want to tap calls that could lead to terrorist information. They only want to do it it within the law in order to prevent this or any future administration from abusing their power for political purposes.

Despite the legal age of consent in DC, Clinton messed around with an ADULT. Of course republicans spent billions investigating it, but when they found out about Foley's emails in the summer of 2005, they wanted to cover it up and hope it went away.

Your premise is false and therefore your question is invalid.

Answer 5

Your question implies that at some level you want to excuse Foley...Tapping phones of those who have neither committed a crime nor are accused of committing a crime is wrong. Foley stands accused of betraying the trust of the people, he has attempted to corrupt children..he maybe guilty of a crime against minors and yes with a lawful approval every computer he has ever touched should be searched...When Clinton had an affair it was with another adult..you will either read this and re-think your question...but if you still think the same way then you are a moron.

Answer 6

No one objects if terrorists are wiretapped. Liberals don't like the massive warrantless mining of the communications of nearly everyone. That's what the Bush administration has been doing for several years and it WAS in violation of the law. Now, he's had the law changed, to make was he was doing legal, to give all involved retroactive immunity.

Foley's communications were NOT tapped. When one person writes or talks to another, they assume the risk that the second person will disclose the communication to others. There's no irony whatsoever or comparison.

The irony was Foley's legislative work on child porn issues including nudist camps that allowed children and teens to be naked as well, AND his Republican rhetoric of Christian moral values.

Answer 7

zzzzzzzz... your boring just like all the other Right Wingers today. The most interesting question was the Crazy 15 year old girl proclaiming the worlds death in 1000 years.... you guys really need to step it up if you hope to corrupt people...maybe y'all need a theme song! Like....Crazy by Britney Spears! That way, you can connect with the younger generation...oops! Already did that!

Answer 8

Clinton screwed around with the opposite sex and Foley was talking to a boy-same sex. OF COURSE it is "SUCH A SCANDAL" every older male would LOVE to have some teenage GIRL fawning over them it is the fact that it was a BOY that makes it such a big deal CAN'T ANYONE ELSE SEE THAT?
CAN'T ANYONE ELSE SEE HOW CRAZY IT IS?

Answer 9

Nobody said anything about eavesdropping, only the legality of it is in question. Bush has decided to do this ILLEGALLY. Next, so you are defending Foley? Or you are blaming Clinton? I don't get it. Either way, you should take a logic class...

Answer 10

hypocracy is spelled hypocricy.

But don't worry, your George got really far without possessing a triple digit IQ either... and I'm sure someday he will hit just on that right reason as to why we had to invade Iraq and turn all the world's young Muslims into U.S. haters.