I suspect so.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/03/w...on/03media.html

This is from CNN

"The lawmaker who oversees the page program, Rep. John Shimkus, a Republican from Illinois, said that he learned about Foley's e-mails in late 2005 and "took immediate action to investigate the matter."

Scarecrow,

"At least two news organizations were tipped off to e-mail messages sent by Representative Mark Foley long before the story of his sexually explicit remarks to teenage pages broke last week."

I guess they should be consigned to perdition also.

I bet he could "do a hell of a job" at FEMA too. :cool:

Scarecrow,

The number I read was 16, which along with 17 is below the age of consent in the USA, a fact of law rather than a statement of the readiness of the child to make informed choices.

jseal,

There are some people who we must sadly remove from mainstream, as one reluctantly severs a gangrenous hand. It's not for revenge, just self defence.

Oldfart,

In re winnowing out the undesirables: of course societies must protect themselves. Does anyone reading this post honestly believe that the good Mr. Foley will regain his position of power? Does anyone reading this post honestly believe that he will ever again run for public office? Of course not. But if he did, and if he was able to persuade a majority of the voters in that campaign that he would be able to improve their lives, is it for me, or you, or anyone else to prevent those voters from doing what they think best for themselves?

If there is good reason to believe he violated the law, then bring an indictment against him and try him in a court of law. If he is found guilty, assess an appropriate penalty. Here in the States dozens of politicos are indicted each year, usually bringing their visions of a New World Order to an abrupt halt. Tom DeLay, the former House Majority Leader, is a recent example of such a fall from political grace. If you want an entry from the other side of the aisle, Wilbur Mills, who headed the House Ways and Means Committee comes to mind. The legal pruning shears are quite active and effective – although some would have you believe otherwise.

You did raise a significant issue with your observation in re the burden of proof required – and why.

Yes sir, quite correct – and eminently justified.

Consider the case of President Clinton's Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy, forced out of office in 1994 by allegations that he improperly took gifts from businesses and lobbyists.

Independent Council Donald C. Smaltz spent more than four years and seventeen million dollars to prosecute Secretary Espy, and the result was thirty “Not Guilty” declarations from the foreman of the trial jury. A guilty verdict could have sent him to prison.

You and I and … others ... don’t even play in the same league. Yes. The rules are different.

As Secretary Espy said of Smaltz, "He's not unlike any other schoolyard bully … You have to stand up to him. You have to let him know you're not going to back down, and sooner or later it's going to be okay."

I was under the impression that trial and retribution was a a focus of this thread, not just a kangaroo court and summary execution.

Oldfart,

Yes sir. Not just a kangaroo court and summary execution.

Still, the temptation is there.

One could argue that people stop voting on the same basis. They've accepted that politicians are who they are and that it doesn't matter which one gets into office...for the end results will be the same. At the end of the day, it's in their natural order to serve themselves instead of who they represent.

I voted for Former Governer John G. Rowland. He made a remarkable Congressman, and was on the fast-track to becoming President. When allegations arose surrounding his business relationship with a state contractor, I listened to what everyone had to say and watched the writing on the wall. As the investigation took roots and a fuzzy picture started to become clearer, I got pissed. I trusted him to make decisions in Connecticut's best interest, not his own. Am I not supposed to be mad? Am I supposed to think "Oh well, he's only human, thus prone to this behavior."? I'm sorry, but I don't take gifts in exchange for awarding lucrative state contracts. I follow the rules, and I abhor those that don't. I wanted to see him serve jail time. Hell, I'd have driven him there myself! He didn't start out corrupt, but he didn't have that little voice inside of him that said "Bad Fucking Idea" either, and that's not a foible. And that's something I don't have to accept...from him or anyone else that I've hired.

I'm sorry, but I expect people in positions of trust to conduct themselves with dignity and respect...for the position itself, and with respect for those that "hired" them. They should never forget why they were put there and what they were put there to do. Rowland was not there to get free hot tubs and trips to Vegas...and Foley was not put there to use subordinates to satisfy his sexual needs.

[QUOTE=Oldfart]Scarecrow,

The number I read was 16, which along with 17 is below the age of consent in the USA, a fact of law rather than a statement of the readiness of the child to make informed choices.
QUOTE]

Oldfart they have to be 16 to apply, but do not take the postion until age 17 and it is a 6 month apaintment. And the age of consent in most states for sex is 16 and is as low as 14 in some states. I have not seen any laws that were broken, just morals.

Now if you want to get mad about a crime;


Five girls dead after Amish school shootings
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061003...e_schools_dc_22

that shooting is horrible. worse than horrible. it's also the third in a week here in the us :( and not all that far from where we live either.




perhaps someone else will know for sure, but i think the adam walsh act (a section of it co-sponsored in part by foley :rolleyes2) made it illegal, a felony in fact, to solicit a minor for sex over the internet. if i remember, the big deal with the bill is that it removes this doubt of consent and age and what state has what age of consent or if the kid lied and said they were thirty. it’s now a federal law to solicit a minor for sex and there’s no bullshit. this is the same bill that aims to help make the internet safer for kids from internet predators and from accidentally stumbling onto a porn site, too…uhm… i think. i’m just a font of reliable info. :p

in any event, i'm not even sure it matters how old the boys were. if they can't get him on a legality, at the very least he's out of office. for the damage he's done to his own party, i'm sure they'll have him blackballed permanently. i don't think he deserves the needle but i didn’t think lil was being literal there...could be wrong though.

wyndhy,

If true, an entertaining resolution, no? :)

Bastard didn't shoot himself before he did the damage, damn shame.