Alberto Gonzales, child sex abuse enabler

Oh dear God

..."As you know, consent is frequently an issue in sexual assault cases. Although none of the victims admit that they consented to the sexual contact, none resisted or voiced any objection to the conduct. Several of the victims suggested that they were simply 'getting off' on the school administrator."

WTF?  To whom should these children have voiced their objections?  Were they supposed to complain to the guards who were raping them?

I don't care how much these children appeared to "enjoy" the activity.  This was rape.  Every time I think Bush's pals can't sink any lower, they manage to exceed my expectations.

"If the apocalypse comes... beep me." -- Buffy Summers

---

by: Kathy @ Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 13:39:46 PM CDT

Please don't think I'm defending any of this

"To whom should these children have voiced their objections?  Were they supposed to complain to the guards who were raping them?"

I bet that based upon the statements of the youth taken by the Texas Rangers and/or the prosecutor, they found no problem with what was going on and some of them may have even enjoyed it.  When you are trying a sexual assault case, the easiest way to lose is to show consent.

What may have been a better angle was that the kids were underage and/or that the administrator may have used his position of power to get what he wanted sexually.  There's not enough detail about how old these kids were, etc. and I'm not familiar enough with Texas law to know where the limits are.

It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. --Thomas Jefferson

---

by: bkporter12 @ Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 13:48:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Consent is impossible

...when it involves a minor or when the parties are in a power relationship. So a minor, in jail, cannot legally have consented to have sex with a guard, even if they actually did enjoy it. The guard has abused his power relationship and whether or not any pain was caused or if the child willing went along with it is irrelevant -- the guard has broken the law. Even if the inmate was of consenting age, the guard still has broken the law.

---

by: Stephanie, in Victoria @ Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 18:21:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thank you, Stephanie

The age of consent in Texas is 17, and there is also a prohibition against teachers and students (no age specified) having sexual contact.  Surely if it's illegal for teachers to have sex with students, it should be a prosecutable offense for guards to have sex with prisoners.  There is no question in my mind that this is rape.

"If the apocalypse comes... beep me." -- Buffy Summers

---

by: Kathy @ Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 21:07:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think the tone tells us better....

This wasn't letter saying "as despicable as this behavior is, I'm afraid the witness statements won't support prosecution".

This was "Hey, they don't admit they liked it, but they didn't complain!"

And, while I know you don't intend to defend any of this, I want you to think about this: by not considering the content of what was said, and taking reasonable inferences from that, you are helping to defend it. It's not what you want, but it's still going to be the net result.

I want to believe the best of people too, but you need to consider the worst, as well, and try to figure out which is most likely.

---

by: longhairedweirdo @ Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 13:18:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hmmm. Maybe a little over the top

Don't get me wrong, I'm definitely not a fan of our esteemed Attorney General, but what is offered here is really not worthy of calling him a "child sex abuse enabler."

Anyone who has the legal knowledge of watching Law and Order a few times knows that there are times when the prosecutor knows a crime has been committed, but is powerless to prosecute it because he cannot prove the legal qualifications of the specific charge in court beyond a reasonable doubt.

Is is horrible and disgusting that some of our gay brethren in the Texas Youth Commission stooped to the level of preying on minors?  Absolutely.  But it just seems to me that the prosecutor didn't think he had a case he could win in court.

It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. --Thomas Jefferson

---

by: bkporter12 @ Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 13:44:17 PM CDT

why politics trumped prosecution

More from the article:

"The letters justify not pursuing these cases because, number one, there is no evidence that any of these juveniles felt physical pain while they were being assaulted, and the letters use the word 'assaulted,'" he said. "And then also, they rejected prosecution because none of these juveniles stated in the investigations that they resisted and objected, which of course the facts of the report show to be the case. This case developed right in the middle of Governor Perry's 2006 re-election campaign. While Texas is a Republican state, and the Republicans expected to win, still at that time, Governor Perry was facing an election challenge from Carole Strayhorn, a third party candidate who was also a former Republican comptroller in Texas."

He continued: "I would speculate that the political powers in Texas and Washington in the Republican Party were not interested in this sex scandal coming to light. Sutton and Gonzales let their political responsibilities outstrip their legal responsibilities, and as a result you had children who were in danger of sexual abuse and were left in that danger."

Tell me that if a Dem AG got caught not pushing prosecution in some manner on a case like this that he/she would get a pass from the Right.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 13:53:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Don't assume the abusers are gay

The fact that the victims were boys may have more to do with access than sexual orientation.  Statistically speaking, the majority of men who molest young boys aren't gay.  Many of them are involved with women in their adult relationships.

---

by: Heidi @ Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 14:17:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

yup, and rape

doesn't have anything to do with sexual desire, but in cases like these is used as displays of power and domination, or as punishment. 

in any case, we have to be careful never to associate the actions of men-who-rape-males with the gay community any more than the actions of men-who-rape-females are associated with the straight community.  the homobigots pounce on stuff like that. 

The gays stole my lunch money

---

by: matt in mpls @ Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 16:09:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

WorldNetDaily?

I would buy this if it came from a reputable source, but WorldNetDaily is about as far from reputable as you can get.  Sorry.  Don't mean to be a dog in the manger.  I also agree that dragging Gonzales into it is a stretch.  If more turns up and from a source that has credibility, then fine.

---

by: DBK @ Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 13:54:08 PM CDT

World Net Daily

I agree with you about World Net Daily not being reputable but the amazing thing about this story is that it is a less then reputable RELIGIOUS RIGHT WING web site run by the American Family Association.  This is some far left website. For this group to come out against Gonzales is quite remarkable.  It shows the total disarray of the Religious right at this point in time.

---

by: Herb @ Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 14:18:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hmm

Please, please don't think that none of these people talk to each other.  That article on WND was a hit piece, completely: Gonzales was barely mentioned in the article!  If this was on WND with so little tie to him, there is a reason for it.

For this story to make it to WND, with almost no link to Gonzo whatsoever in the story, makes me think that Bush/Rove decided to let him go, so it's time for more stories to surface so that Bush can back away from his previous support and let him go without getting any stink on him.

They're getting ready to sink him, and they need an excuse.  This sounds like a good one, since it also has gay sex as an element in the story, and there's nothing that right likes to do more than deep-six anyone associated with teh gay.

---

by: torrentprime @ Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 20:53:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I meant to say

I meant to say "This site is NOT some far left web site"  Sorry.

---

by: Herb @ Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 14:20:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

interesting other press release of the day

here.  timing coincidental?  bushco is expert at saying "hey!  look over there!"

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 14:16:20 PM CDT

Yes but

Yes but they usually point at someone else not the same person.  I think Wildmon (who runs AFA) is upset with the way the Republicans are running things and is taking a pot shot at them.

---

by: Herb @ Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 14:23:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Er, what the AG said last week

He said that he was busy "Protecting the children" after stating that he had no plans to step down.

Where's Chris Hansen when we need him?  Every week on "To Catch a Predator" he shoots down that "they wanted it" argument over and over.

---

by: Paul In SF @ Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 14:16:30 PM CDT

other sources

Here are some other sources on this:
http://www.statesman...

http://www.nytimes.c...

Google News has lots of hits on this. If Bush can use "The Google" we should be able handle it, especially before criticizing Pam.  That this appears in WND makes an interesting point.

And to bkporter12's on, "Is is horrible and disgusting that some of our gay brethren in the Texas Youth Commission stooped to the level of preying on minors?" You're willing to give Gonzales and federal prosecutors benefit of the doubt, but automatically assume the corrections officers are gay?  What's that?

Electricity's for light bulbs!

---

by: n8nyc @ Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 14:25:44 PM CDT

thanks for the other \ links

I used the WND article precisely because it shows the Right is cracking in a big way. When they stop marching in lockstep with this morally bankrupt administration, the GOP and the Bushies start shaking in their boots.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 14:31:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

right on

let's hope they continue to eat each other and become very unfocused in time for the 2008 elections. When WND won't fall in line and endorse a Bushie, it's big. Your post this morning about Phyllis Schlafly really got me thinking of how important having a focus is.

Electricity's for light bulbs!

---

by: n8nyc @ Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 14:48:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

As to why I assumed they are gay

Well, according to US Federal Law, they are homosexuals:

"The term "homosexual" means a person, regardless of sex, who
engages in...homosexual acts.
The term "homosexual act" means any bodily contact, actively undertaken or passively permitted, between members of the same sex"

Now I don't know any of the people involved personally, but according to the law of the land, men who have sex with men are homosexuals.  It doesn't really make any difference in my mind about the prosecution or not of cases of rape, etc. if this was homosexual or heterosexual.  If there were a difference, it would be another example of the inequality we fight against.

It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. --Thomas Jefferson

---

by: bkporter12 @ Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 16:07:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

then refer to homosexual acts, not homosexuals

there is a big difference.  i can stand up and read the bible on the street corner, which is acting like an evangelical christian.  that doesn't make me an evangelical christian.  besides, rape is a crime of contol and violence carried out via sexual organs.  it is not sex.

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 16:25:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

i meant to add that

rape is not heterosexual or homosexual.  rape is violence.  so i take back what i said in my other subject line.  dont even call it homosexual acts.  they weren't.  they were violent acts perpetrated on the boys' sexual organs and psyches.

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 16:28:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Let's not feed the trolls...

And maybe they'll go away and take their willful ignorance with them.

---

by: CLD @ Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 11:31:38 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

And then you should understand that "homosexual" does not

automatically translate into "gay" by that definition, either.

I'm sure Gonzales can explain this mess very easily - he was merely training the young men for a stint as congressional pages.

---

by: kevinbgoode @ Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 16:35:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

allow me to gently correct you on this

a lot of people would cite your definition of homosexuality as correct, but it's fundamentally incorrect for several reasons and needs correction. 

"homosexual", as i believe we define it here and as it should be universally defined, involves innate feelings of desire towards members of your own sex.  personal acceptance of the fact that one is homosexual culminates in a concept that we call "gay".  in the case of closet cases like ted haggard or any number of the "ex-gays", there is an understanding that those feelings exist but that homophobia is forcing their suppression.  the jury is still out on what they should be called, but i'd vote that they are "closeted homosexuals" and "ex-gay homosexuals", which fit those definitions. 

in any case, sex acts are separate.  just like you can be heterosexual and never actually have sex of any sort, you can also be homosexual and never have sex.  the definition you cited fails to take this into account, for starters.  a male porn star or a male hooker might do men because the market of men seeking prostitutes and porn is much better, but that doesn't mean he's homosexual.  or prison sex, even when it is consensual, isn't homosexual if the men involved have innate desires towards women but all they have available are men.  you see?  it's innate feelings that put heterosexuality and homosexuality on equal planes. 

we also can't assume the rapists in this case are gay.  rape is more often of a display of power and authority, which seems likely here, or a device to punish someone.  the men of sodom and gommorrah so often cited by the fundies weren't gay or even homosexual, they were rapists (specifically, gang-rapists).  your cited definition even makes the victim a homosexual if he didn't actively defend himself.  that just doesn't seem right at all.  rape can be inflicted by a homosexual man onto a woman, even.  does that make the rapist a heterosexual?

but, let's say some of the rapists were, in fact, gay.  what's the point in calling that to attention?  do heterosexual rapists get that distinction?  rape is rape, pedophelia is pedophelia, child abuse is child abuse, a crime is a crime.

i hope this helps clear things up. 

 

The gays stole my lunch money

---

by: matt in mpls @ Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 17:21:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is sick!

I detest Gonza and the rest of his criminal gang brought on by bush!

"Protect the kids" ... yeah right Gonza, HYPOCRITICAL Gonza!

My they rot in hell for this!

---

by: Juan @ Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 14:26:48 PM CDT

Cripes

Haven't any of these morons heard of statutory rape? Legal minors can't consent. It doesn't matter if they suggested it, enjoyed it, and want it to happen again, it's the adults responsibility to know that engaging in sex with any legal minor is against the damn law. Not to mention the fact that they were inmates in a correctional facility. I'm fairly certain there's laws on the books about abusing a position of power in such a manner as well.

---

by: Ferin @ Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 18:34:53 PM CDT

Read about Bush's Texan faith-based orgs

.. and the rampant physical and sexual abuses that they harbor in the late (great) Molly Ivins boob 'Bushwhacked'; this kind of laissez faire public charity is always penetrated by predators.

ONLY GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABLE FEDERAL SOCIAL STRUCTURES CAN BE PROPERLY MONITORED; you can't outsource society to the churches.

---

by: steerpike66 @ Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 06:17:56 AM CDT