The Washington Post decides that people should be charged with actual crimes, not just possibly hinting that they might be willing to commit crimes:
These arguments probably don't meet the legal standard, and Mr. Craig is at fault for not consulting a lawyer and for waiving his right to appear before a judge. Yet it seems clear that he pleaded guilty because his priority was not exoneration but avoiding exposure. What's troubling is that the sting operation may have been counting on just that sort of motivation in order to extract guilty pleas from men who, in fact, had done nothing explicitly lewd or illegal.
Many or even all of those charged, including Mr. Craig, probably were in the bathroom in search of sex. No one is in favor of sex in airport restrooms or any other place where it may cause public offense. But as with any other crime, those targeted and arrested for lewd or disorderly conduct ought first to be caught in a lewd or disorderly act. That wasn't the case with Mr. Craig.
That's not a surprising position for the Post. But it is remarkable that one of the bastions of liberal orthodoxy would apply it to a "Republican hypocrite," who, as all good liberals know, deserves nothing but ridicule and retribution.
