As Reason reports, what a waste of time and money: Homeland Security Raids Rentboy.com — DHS “will use its unique authorities to disrupt and dismantle” gay escort sites, says special investigator.
In addition, Scott Shackford shares 6 Thoughts on the Rentboy.com Bust from 1 Angry, Gay Libertarian. He explains:
There is absolutely no pretense of pretending there are any “victims” here. Nobody is charged with “trafficking.” There is absolutely nothing in the complaint that even hints at the idea that there is anything nonconsensual happening….
As usual, follow the money. Want to know the real reason why DHS is involved? … The feds are looking to seize $1.4 million from six bank accounts related to the raid. This money, thanks to federal asset forfeiture rules, would likely be split among the agencies involved, including the New York Police Department, who offered up their assistance in the raid even though there was probably no need for both agencies.
Will LGBT Democrats defend (because, you know, it’s Obama so it’s gotta be ok)?
More. Some are speaking out. Good! But not the beltway players.
Some are also wondering why NYC’s famously progressive Mayor Bill de Blasio and Police Commissioner William Bratton worked with the federal prosecutors.
Imagine if this happened with a GOP president and mayor. LGBT media would be nothing but ‘Republicans’ war on gay sex!!!!’
61 Comments for “Homeland Security’s Priority – Closing Down Gay Escort Service”
posted by Doug on
Does this mean you want to legalize all prostitution, Stephen?
posted by Lori Heine on
I do. But I doubt that he does.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
—Will LGBT Democrats defend (because, you know, it’s Obama so it’s gotta be ok)?
Point 1: Is Stephen suggesting that adult prostitution is entirely a “victimless” crime and should be legalized? Well, that is certainly a debate worth having, but it is not really directly relevant to whether or not a government agency should or should not enforce the laws currently on the books (or what priorities they should have)
Point 2: It is certainly possible that male or female or (why discriminate?) transgender “escorts” or sex workers or prostitutes can be used for blackmail purposes or to gather classified information. It is not automatically outside the realm of possibility that someone or some group — domestic or international — is using “ladies and gentlemen of the evening” in order to commit some blackmail or espionage.
Point 3: If this is just a “fishing expedition”, then it does seem like a waste of tax payers money. However, I am not prone to automatically supporting or opposing ‘x’ because of who sits in the White House.
I realize that the narrative of the “homocons” is that “This proves that everything that Obama does is evil,” and the narrative of some loyal Democrats is “yes, we can….defend!” I am just not terrible interested in playing these sort of silly narrative/talking points gimmicks.
The Bottom Line: Why is this investigation into “escorts” taking place? Is this part of an ongoing investigation (which may limit how much can be talked about by homeland) or is this something else?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Leaving aside the question of whether sex-for-pay, in its endless variants, should be illegal (I think not), what in the hell is Homeland Security doing chasing down and prosecuting domestic sex-for-pay services?
How does does cracking down on a sex-for-pay operation increase our security from terrorism? Or secure our borders? Or enforce our immigration laws? Or “safeguard and secure cyberspace”? Or strengthen our country against disasters? Is there any link at all between the purpose for which Homeland Security was established and this prosecution? That’s the question we should be asking.
Even when confined to its mission Homeland Security has been a disaster-in-the-making, threatening the privacy of Americans, increasing government secrecy, and expanding government power into areas where it doesn’t belong. The history of the Department has been one long history of abuse, but Department’s involvement in domestic sex-for-pay prosecution is as clear an example of “power granted will become power abused” as I have seen in a long time.
Although the Rentboys prosecution harkens up the days when government police powers were routinely and mindlessly used to harrass gays and lesbians in the name of “morality” — and I suppose that is what is fueling the uproar so far from gays and lesbians — this is an abuse of power that should outrage every American.
It won’t, of course. The supposedly moral, upstanding pillars of the community are unlikely to respond at all, because the prosecution involves prostitution, and another line will be crossed in the direction of government abuse of power while the “morality” crowd applauds.
Back in the days after 9-11, when Homeland Security was created and granted extraordinary (and mostly unnecessary) powers, very few had the balls to stand up and fight against the Homeland Security Act. Those that did were ostracized as “un-American”. The consistent pattern of Homeland Security abuse suggests that the opponents were right, and this is yet another example.
posted by Houndentenor on
They also successfully disrupted the money flow across continents and inside the US that allowed Al Qaeda and various criminal organizations to function so efficiently and easily. I don’t think the people doing such work have gotten nearly the credit they deserve in greatly reducing the terror thread in the US.
posted by Houndentenor on
Not reading any actual gay writers or bloggers, are you, Stephen?
No one is cheering on this action. However, it seems that the focus in on money-laundering rather than the actual prostitution. The prostitution is, however, still against the law. We can change that, of course, but it should not be the business of any administration to pick and choose which laws it will enforce and which it won’t. Of course they’ve pretty much all done that including selective enforcement of the drug laws. (Cindy McCain did no jail time for forging prescriptions on a stolen doctor’s prescription pad, for example. Nor did Jeb Bush’s daughter go to jail for her drug charges. And this isn’t new. Selective enforcement was rampant during prohibition, among many examples.)
So, please, get on to calling for legalization of prostitution. I will not object. But money-laundering is a real problem and something tells me there will be more to this story than just gay sex for sale when this goes to trial.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
But money-laundering is a real problem and something tells me there will be more to this story than just gay sex for sale when this goes to trial.
I suggest you read the complaint. The complaint alleges violations of NY statutes 230.00, 230.25 and 230.30, which are prostitution laws. The complaint does not allege that money was “laundered” in violation of state and/or federal laws, or that the business posed a threat to the security of the United States.
posted by Houndentenor on
In that case we should demand to know why Homeland Security was involved in a case in which only state charges were filed. Was state and city law enforcement not up to the task of selectively enforcing laws governing prostitution? I don’t know why any federal law enforcement should be involved if it’s not a federal case.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
In that case we should demand to know why Homeland Security was involved in a case in which only state charges were filed.
Exactly my point.
The business model deployed by Rentboys is inconsistent with money laundering and/or funding/facilitating terrorism.
As I understand it from reading news reports:
Rentboys is a website. Escorts purchase listings on the website to advertise their services. Customers make their own contact and financial arrangements with the escorts. Rentboys is not a pimp service, making arrangements and taking a bite of the action. Rentboys doesn’t have an affiliated porn site, apparently. Escort money doesn’t flow through Rentboys, and, as pay-for-sex services go, Rentboys look more like choir boys..
The fact that Rentboys has just a bit over a million in the seized accounts supports the descriptions of the business model. $1.4 million is chump change in the porn/prostitution industry.
posted by Houndentenor on
The more I learn about this the more bizarre it seems that Homeland Security was involved. If we had a decent Congress or a responsible press corps there would be serious questions being asked right now.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The more I learn about this the more bizarre it seems that Homeland Security was involved.
The feds got involved through the Travel Act, a 1961 law that makes it illegal to use the mail, and, by extension, the internet, for illegal activities. That explains the legal hook that the feds used to get involved, but it doesn’t explain why Homeland Security decided to put itself front and center in the case, instead of letting the FBI or another agency stand in the spotlight. The thing has the flavor G. Edgar and his 1930’s G-men.
If we had a decent Congress or a responsible press corps there would be serious questions being asked right now.
You bet. And I’ll bet that if this case involved anything other than prostitution — and gay prostitution at that — at least some of them might be raising questions.
Again, I don’t understand how this prosecution squares with Homeland Security’s mission:
1. Prevent terrorism and enhancing security;
2. Secure and manage our borders;
3. Enforce and administer our immigration laws;
4. Safeguard and secure cyberspace; and
5. Ensure resilience to disasters.
What concerns me, given the history of abuse of power by the Homeland Security Department, is that this prosecution might represent the “new normal”, when Homeland Security’s extraordinary powers are used for criminal prosecution rather than to suppress terrorism.
posted by Jorge on
In that case we should demand to know why Homeland Security was involved in a case in which only state charges were filed.
DHS answers that question in Mr. Miller’s latest link:
“As the investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security, ICE is responsible for the enforcement of laws that promote the legitimate movement of people, goods and currency in domestic and foreign transactions. Our allegation with this case is that the business and its principals purported itself to be an escort service while promoting criminal acts, namely illegal prostitution.”
That responsible is simple and sensible. When investigating the largest illegal business in a nation, it makes sense to investigate whether or not this business is international as well as national. It appears they either came up short in that area or have not finished their investigation. And no, we are not entitled to know which it is.
Someone in that article makes a comment about mayors Giuliani and Bloomberg. Under those mayors, a lot of guns were taken out of the circulation of gang members without necessarily leading to gun or gang charges. That’s good law enforcement because it removes an element–in that case the combination of guns and gangs–that is highly indicative of a threat to public safety.
So is this.
posted by Jorge on
“That responsible” >> that response.
posted by Houndentenor on
Matt Baume’s response is interesting.
http://www.thestranger.com/blogs/slog/2015/08/26/22762370/matt-baume-on-the-rentboycom-raid
posted by Jorge on
Ehhh, I say wait for the trial.
As usual, follow the money. Want to know the real reason why DHS is involved? … The feds are looking to seize $1.4 million from six bank accounts related to the raid.
Fine. Mr. angry gay libertarian has made his point. Here is mine.
Well, Houndentenor beat me to it thematically. And that is that there are legitimate federal public order and criminal enterprise concerns that justify shutting down large illegal businesses, certainly the largest illegal business in a particular industry. During prohibition as we all know the mob got involved in bootlegging. And for many years since organized crime was involved in other illegal industries such as gambling. Now the main reason we consider the mob to be the bad guys isn’t because it did illegal business. It’s because it killed people.
Libertarians are usually skeptical about the social harms of an illegal business in itself. That is quite different from the national and often more severe harm caused when a person or individual engages in violent or fraudulent conduct to support a business, legal or illegal. It takes a tremendous amount of effort and skill to untangle such an enterprise. As you might remember, the government never did get a conviction on Al Capone for anything except tax evasion. Decades later John Gotti for enjoyed similar good fortune for years, earning the nickname “The Teflon Don.” I think it is very likely this prosecution may have stopped some more serious form of criminal activity, and I am almost certain it nipped it in the bud.
So while I don’t begrudge this libertarian outrage, really at all, I am firmly on the other side of this one until more facts come out during the trial or investigation. The criminal complaint states it is not identifying all of the facts that the investigation has uncovered because it is for the limited purpose of establishing probable cause. That means the government is reserving the right to keep one or more cards hidden from view. I would credit that.
After all, the last couple of times people in a minority community got outraged over the way a story appeared on the surface (the deaths of Treyvon Martin and Michael Brown, most notably), new facts emerged that completely undermined the initial narrative.
posted by Houndentenor on
I have a prediction for the trial. The owners of rentboy.com will play the Mayflower Madam card. In case you’re too young to remember, the Mayflower Madam ran an elite escort service and when she was arrested and charged her attorney called every prominent person from her appointment book as a character witness. Rumor has it that the pressure to take down rentboy came from elected officials afraid they’d be outed by the prostitutes they’d hired.
Even so, it appears that I was wrong about the money laundering. That’s what I get for forming an opinion based on the early short articles and not the later ones with more detail. My mistake. There are no money laundering charges and so far as we know no national security angle. Unless one emerges, there’s no reason that Homeland Security should have been involved. Local NY officials, okay, but Homeland Security? That requires an explanation.
posted by Jorge on
Hah! That’s a daring bluff. You think Gary Condit’s going to save Rentboy from McCarthy tactics? And that’s if the company’s relatively clean.
posted by Jorge on
One more thing and speaking of the “morality” crowd.
I cannot help but note with some superstition that this comes only days after the massive leak of information hacked from adultery website Ashley Madison. It seems fitting that the gay community should be confronted with a similar situation at around the same time. Are these events the same? Are they different? If every American should care about the Rentboy story, then it follows that we should care about the Ashley Madison story as well.
It would not be such a great tragedy if the straight and gay communities stood apart if, by some coincidence or design, they were engaged in a similar controversy separately. Bridging the divide is also an option.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I cannot help but note with some superstition that this comes only days after the massive leak of information hacked from adultery website Ashley Madison. It seems fitting that the gay community should be confronted with a similar situation at around the same time.
Good lord, why is it “fitting”?
Are these events the same? Are they different? If every American should care about the Rentboy story, then it follows that we should care about the Ashley Madison story as well.
The two situations are dissimilar. The Rentboy case is a criminal prosecution under New York state prostitution laws, with a side-charge of conspiracy to violate the federal Travel Act by using the internet to aid and abet the prostitution. The Ashley Madison case, which was the work of hackers calling themselves the “Impact Team”, involves no law enforcement agencies, state or federal, and no criminal prosecution, although I note that the FBI and other law enforcement agencies are working (“Project Unicorn”) to uncover the hackers and prosecute them. About the only thing that the two have in common is dicks.
The problem with the Rentboy prosecution isn’t that it is yet another government attempt to enforce sexual morality, but that the Department of Homeland Security, with the extraordinary powers granted to it under the Patriot Act, was front and center in the investigation. And the problem with that is that the only justification for Homeland Security involvement is that (in the words of a US Attorney involved in prosecution) “the internet” was used to host the website.
What I am concerned about is that the Rentboy case signals yet another erosion of the line between national security and domestic criminal prosecution, yet another invasion/evasion of the Constitutional limits that our courts have placed on criminal investigation/prosecution, and (in all likelihood) yet another example of government overreach, not unlike Stingray use by local police.
Over the last two decades, we have given our government the power to create what amounts to a police/surveillance state under the guise of “national security”, and have watched silently while the government erodes what used to be clear lines between national security investigations and domestic criminal investigations. From what I can find out about Rentboy, the case signals another (perhaps small, but significant) step in that direction.
posted by Jorge on
Good lord, why is it “fitting”?
…
About the only thing that the two have in common is dicks.
What they have in common are sex, scandal, community expectations of privacy, and the internet. Illegal activities are also present in each, though this is a contrast.
The internet age is creating new perils and new opportunities. It is a time when we will have to decide whether a new ethics are also needed, or whether there shall be new ways of reinforcing the old ethics.
posted by Houndentenor on
Ding Ding Ding
People should be freaking out that anything they put online could be leaked. And at some point probably will be. Being a nobody, there’s no reason anyone should care about my personal information (except maybe an identity thief), but for some reason people think they have privacy and anonymity online. They don’t.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
People should be freaking out that anything they put online could be leaked. And at some point probably will be. Being a nobody, there’s no reason anyone should care about my personal information (except maybe an identity thief), but for some reason people think they have privacy and anonymity online. They don’t.
I think that people should assume that anything that they put online will be public knowledge sooner or later. People should assume that there is a very high probability that the information on their cell phones, tablets and computers will, sooner or later, be hacked by someone. People should also assume that anything that they do online (site visits, purchases, online library book loans, and so on) will be tracked and kept in databases, primarily for targeted advertising and other commercial uses.
The long arm of technology and surveillance, however, extends well beyond internet tracking. The Patriot Act authorizes the government to gather, analyze and keep phone call metadata on American citizens, ditto for e-mail, authorizes “person tapping” (that is, surveillance of all electronic devices used by a person, not specific devices) and other warrant-less data surveillance. Federal, state and local authorities use “stingray” towers to track cell phones. License plates are recorded as people drive down the interstate. If you drive a modern car, chances are very good that the local of your car can be tracked using satellites. Surveillance cameras are just about everywhere in our urban areas, shopping malls and public buildings.
People should assume that the government has the means to track just about anything that they do outside of the confines of there homes, often without a specific targeted investigation aim and typically without a warrant.
That’s not paranoid; it is just a fact of modern life. Beyond identify theft, few of us have much to fear in that regard because we don’t to anything of particular interest to anyone. Nonetheless, the Magna Carta counts — with the extraordinary powers of surveillance available to government today, citizens should demand that the extraordinary powers be used with extraordinary care so as to avoid wholesale violations of citizen privacy.
It is in that context that I am concerned about the Rentboy prosecution. Like you, Houndentenor, the more I learn about the operation, the more concerned I become about Homeland Security’s involvement and leading role. It seems to me that we are seeing a slow but steady erosion between national security activities and criminal prosecution activities, the one of which requires some dark operations but other of which should be subject to full constitutional scrutiny and protection.
A case in point is the “stingray” technology used by federal, state and local authorities to track cell phones. The ACLU has been working to ensure that this technology is used within constitutional confines. It is extraordinarily hard to do, because the authorities are determined to keep the technology’s use secret, and ACLU efforts to obtain information, inside and outside of court, are routinely blocked on “national security” grounds, even though the inquires are about use of the technology by local police in criminal prosecutions.
I think that people should be doing a lot of questioning about Homeland Security’s role in the Rentboy prosecution, and I don’t think that people should adopt Jorge’s attitude of “trust the government” in this or other instances. Maybe “trust, but verify”, but not just “trust”.
posted by Houndentenor on
Most interesting, I have not found a single example of Stephen’s prediction that liberals will defend this action because Obama. My only support was contingent on their being some money-laundering aspect. In fact this has prompted a number of gay organizations, writers and bloggers to renew their support for decriminalization of all private consensual sex between adults (including sex work). In other words, the opposite.
Meanwhile in Houston, the gay conservative organizations that were going to form an alliance with the liberal gay Houstonians have gone and endorsed the anti-gay local politicians who voted against the ordinance in the first place. So once again it’s the homocons who are stabbing the gay community in the back because politics, not the liberals. Projection much, Stephen?
http://www.towleroad.com/2015/08/log-cabin-republicans-endorse-3-candidates-voted-lgbt-protections-houston/
posted by tom jefferson 3rd on
It seems like the local LCR blew a perfectly good chance to be seen as relevant.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Most interesting, I have not found a single example of Stephen’s prediction that liberals will defend this action because Obama.
The much hated liberal bastion NYT Editorial Board had some choice words for the prosecution:
I can only hope — and I do — that non-libertarian conservative critics of Homeland Security overreach will have something to say about the case. I”m afraid, though, that seeming to defend “gay prostitution” might be too much for them to swallow, and for their Bible-thumping constituents to condone.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
It is possibility that we are looking at the digital age’s version of Mata Hari….or this is about money laundering — which organized crime or terrorists use to fund their activities — or….
Were the initial NY prostitution charges designed to get the legal ‘ball rolling’, with further charges coming down the pipe line (or to pressure people (say escorts or prostitutes) to be more ‘helpful’ with the investigators)?
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
—There is absolutely no pretense of pretending there are any “victims” here.
Again, if you want to make the case that all “victimless” crimes should be legal, that is a debate worth having.
Although, their are certainly real victims when dealing with drug addiction or prostitution. Also not everyone who is an escort or sex worker or prostitute feels safe enough to complain about their boss or file a complaint with human resources.
When dealing with adults and commercialized sex or dating, “consent” can be a tricky thing to prove or disprove.
Organized crime and terrorist groups do have a history of using certain types of businesses for money laundering. That may or may not be the situations in this case.
People have certainly used prostitutes or escorts or sex workers to help blackmail people who have had access to “special” or outright classified information. That may or may not be the situations in this case.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
More. Some are speaking out. Good!
I don’t want to sound too much like Grumpy Cat, but not very many are speaking out, and those that are seem to be focused on side issues — sex workers, victimless crimes, the politics game, and so on.
The “libertarians” at Reason are all off chasing the “decriminalize sex work” angle, instead of the expansion of government power, and the “gay activist” groups that are speaking out seem to be headed down the same rabbit hole, with a twist of “Why the gays?”.
Homeland Security chose its highly visible entry into the criminal prosecution spotlight well, morphing from national security to criminal prosecution in a case that was bound to distract most into sensationalism while putting off “respectable” people who might otherwise be concerned with the expansion of Homeland Security’s “mission”.
The ACLU has it right, though, which isn’t surprising since the ACLU has been blowing smoke up Homeland Security’s butt since the days when the Patriot Act was enacted.
posted by tom jefferson 3rd on
If organized crime or terrorists are using escorts to get secrets or using escort web pages to do some money laundring, I can see why Homeland would be involved.
If this is just a case of cracking down on an escort service – as a front for prostitution – I think it is probably something for Homeland to take a back seat on.
I dont always agree with the ACLU and dont think that the Homeland dep is a bad idea per se
posted by Tom Scharbach on
If organized crime or terrorists are using escorts to get secrets or using escort web pages to do some money laundring, I can see why Homeland would be involved.
A pretty big “if”, if I might say so, Tom, particularly when there is no evidence as yet to support it.
I dont always agree with the ACLU and dont think that the Homeland dep is a bad idea per se …
The ACLU opposed (an continues to oppose) the pervasive surveillance powers granted by the Patriot Act with respect to American citizens. The ACLU opposes the Homeland Security Department when it steps over Constitutional boundaries. I don’t think that the ACLU opposes the idea of consolidating “homeland security” operations under a single authority, and neither do I. But when extraordinary powers are granted to the government, extraordinary care needs be taken to avoid abuse of those powers, and that is why Americans should be concerned about this latest expansion of the role of the Homeland Security Department.
posted by tom jefferson 3rd on
Money laundry, espionage or black mail.
If Home Land is involved, then it is probably part of an investigation into one or more of these matters. If not, then somone will be held accountable.
The ACLU has very little credibility with the general public, outside of some very liberal voters or some civil libertarians.
posted by tom jefferson 3rd on
right now we have some prostitution charges. I suspect the investigation is ongoing and that additional charges – explaining Homeland’s involvement – will be forthcoming (when they have additional evidence).
Homeland has to know that their activites are being scrutinzed, and that they need to be able to justify their involvement.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The ACLU has very little credibility with the general public, outside of some very liberal voters or some civil libertarians.
The ACLU has been a target of concerted, conservative/Republican attacks for decades, since the McCarthy era — does the phrase “ACL-Jew” mean anything to you, or are you too young to have heard it?
What the “general public” thinks or doesn’t (usually doesn’t when it comes to legal issues) is of no importance, because few in the “general public” have a clue as to what the ACLU does, and how important that work has been for preserving individual freedom in this country.
I suspect the investigation is ongoing and that additional charges – explaining Homeland’s involvement – will be forthcoming (when they have additional evidence).
Uh, huh. Forgive my skepticism.
posted by Lori Heine on
Government agencies will seize money from people on any pretext they can scrounge up. This is probably just another heist.
posted by Tom Jefferson 3rd on
If you want to legalize prostitution – “commercial sex work” is the more academic term – take it up with the law makers or the likely voters.
If a federal law has been violated, especially something of this sort, it cannot simply ignore the law, because some people think that the international buying and selling of people (or their sexual services) is “OK.
posted by Lori Heine on
At the moment, I’m not trying to legalize anything. I’m simply pointing out that government agencies do have an amazing propensity to get their hands on citizens’ money whenever they can.
posted by Tom Jefferson 3rd on
You can be as cynical or skeptical as you want. I’m a bit too young for some of your older references.
Didn’t the ACLU defend NAMBLA pedophiles? Didn’t they initially endorse anti-gay discrimination? Sounds pretty bad to me.
This is the problem with political polarization; I am expected to believe that law enforcement is always corrupt or always righteous.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Didn’t the ACLU defend NAMBLA pedophiles? Didn’t they initially endorse anti-gay discrimination? Sounds pretty bad to me.
The ACLU has, over the course of its history, brought a lot of lawsuits on behalf of civil liberties that have pissed just about everyone off, liberals and conservatives alike. It has defended the rights of communists, Nazis and neo-Nazis, pornographers, unpopular and persecuted religious groups like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Amish, Muslims and (most recently) hard-core conservative Christians, criminals of all sorts of disgusting varieties, draft dodgers, and on and on.
That is what it does, and that is why it is valuable.
The ACLU has, as you will discover if you read up on its history a bit, taken twists and turns over the years as it developed its mission and as issues changed over time. All institutions do. It has taken positions that I disagree with, but I continue to support the ACLU because, for all its mistakes and difficulties over the years, it has been a consistent ally of civil liberties. It was when it was founded in the 1920’s, it was when it fought off civil liberties violations in the frenzy of World War II and the McCarthy era, and it is now.
The ACLU of Massachusetts defended NAMBLA in a free speech case. Nobody likes NAMBLA, but defending free speech is most critical when the message is one most people reject.
The ACLU has also defended the rights of conservative, anti-gay Christians — the right to speak out, primarily. Do you have a problem with that?
The ACLU steps up when nobody else will. Think about that — and what would happen to our liberties if the government could establish the principle that the only time speech is protected is when it is popular — a minute. You might get the point.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Tom, take a look at the ACLU case docket from your state, Minnesota. Take a half hour and read the case descriptions by clicking on the links. My guess is that you will agree with some of the positions the ACLU has taken, disagree with others, and be baffled by still others. What the cases have in common is the defense of individual constitutional freedom in the face of majority mindlessness.
posted by Lori Heine on
The ACLU frequently defends unpopular speech, because its mission is to defend civil liberties, and the liberties of the unpopular are those most likely to be infringed upon. I try to keep in mind that this is their ultimate aim, so when they defend somebody I don’t like, I don’t let myself get upset about it.
posted by Tom Jefferson 3rd on
It looks like Homeland claims to have evidence of international prostitution, which is a federal crime.
What the law should say about escorts or prostitution is a valid debate to have, but, again, it’s something to take up with legislators or the likely voters.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
It looks like Homeland claims to have evidence of international prostitution, which is a federal crime.
Again, I would quietly ask why the Department of Homeland Security, rather than one of the federal law enforcement agencies charged with investigating and prosecuting federal crimes, went front and center on this prosecution, and what the prosecution has to do with Homeland Security’s stated mission:
1. Prevent terrorism and enhancing security;
2. Secure and manage our borders;
3. Enforce and administer our immigration laws;
4. Safeguard and secure cyberspace; and
5. Ensure resilience to disasters.
I don’t doubt that (if the underlying prostitution laws of the State of New York were violated) federal laws were also violated. The complaint alleges that the Travel Act was violated, for example, and I imagine that, if pushed hard enough, other federal violations could be ennumerated.
But none of that is germane to the questions I’ve raised: (1) Why is this Homeland Security’s business, rather than the business of the federal law enforcement agencies charged with investigating and prosecuting violations of federal law? and (2) What does this portend in terms of further erosion of the line between national security activities and domestic crime-fighting activities? Not too long ago, that line was reasonably clear, but it has been steadily eroded since 9-11. It looks to me like Homeland Security, with the extraordinary powers granted to it under the Patriot Act, taking the lead on this prosecution is a further erosion of that line. That is what makes this prosecution problematic, not the fact that federal law enforcement agencies — the FBI or the ATF, for example — get involved in investigations and prosecutions of federal law violations.
You are missing the point, big time, Tom.
posted by Jorge on
4. Safeguard and secure cyberspace
Really, Tom? You law types have balls, I’ll give you that.
“Secure and manage our borders”, too.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
So how does a website linking up escorts and customers threaten the security of cyberspace? So how does a website linking up escorts and customers in various cities threaten the security of our borders?
posted by Jorge on
So how does a website linking up escorts and customers threaten the security of cyberspace?
First of all, call the crime by its name. Promoting prostitution is illegal.
An operation or investigation to ensure that the internet is not used for the promotion of an illegal business is direct application of a mission to secure cyberspace.
So how does a website linking up escorts and customers in various cities threaten the security of our borders?
An investigation into whether an illegal business is being supported by, employing, or catering to foreign nationals is also a direct application of a duty to secure this nation’s borders.
My question to you, Tom, is why you believe it is more appropriate for the FBI or any other federal agency besides DHS to be the federal agency involved in this investigation.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
First of all, call the crime by its name. Promoting prostitution is illegal.
The allegation is that the website promoted prostitution, illegal under New York state law, and federal involvement under the Travel Act is predicated on that being proved. If it turns out, as it well might, that the state law crime isn’t proved, then the federal charges fall of necessity. I have been around the track too many times to believe that an allegation of crime conflates with guilt.
An operation or investigation to ensure that the internet is not used for the promotion of an illegal business is direct application of a mission to secure cyberspace.
According to the DHS: “The Department has the lead for the federal government for securing civilian government computer systems, and works with industry and state, local, tribal and territorial governments to secure critical infrastructure and information systems. The Department works to: (1) analyze and reduces cyber threats and vulnerabilities; (2) distribute threat warnings; and (3) coordinate the response to cyber incidents to ensure that our computers, networks, and cyber systems remain safe.
So how does “an operation or investigation to ensure that the internet is not used for the promotion of an illegal business” fit into that?
An investigation into whether an illegal business is being supported by, employing, or catering to foreign nationals is also a direct application of a duty to secure this nation’s borders.
Again, how? What has this prosecution to do with securing U.S. air, land, and sea points of entry, or the security of our borders? The nature of the escort business is local — you hook up with somebody where you are, whether that be New York City or Brussels. What involvement does this have with our borders?
My question to you, Tom, is why you believe it is more appropriate for the FBI or any other federal agency besides DHS to be the federal agency involved in this investigation.
The FBI’s primary mission is law enforcement. If federal laws have been broken, the FBI can handle it. We don’t need to erode the lines between law enforcement, which is subject to longstanding constitutional constraints, and national security, which largely isn’t because it isn’t dealing with US citizens. We are slowly eroding the line between the two, and I think that is dangerous.
posted by Jorge on
Hmm, I was not expecting my stronger argument to fail. Fine, internet crime alone doesn’t justify Department of Homeland Security involvement.
The possibility of any type of foreign involvement, however, does.
First, the commission of certain crimes in the US by foreign nationals is grounds for deportation or revocation of entry rights. Investigating such matters is an ICE concern.
More to the point, the exportation of criminal activity into the United States also falls under border security, whether that’s about financial support, goods and services, or intelligence. The fact that we are talking about electronic points of entry into the US as opposed to physical points of entry into the US is irrelevant if there is contact between things in the US and things not in the US. Someone smuggling concrete across the border to build a meth factory in New Mexico is much the same by the standard you named as someone inside Denmark building a website for a business in New York. Perhaps it should be just the US military patroling the Mexican border… but it’s not.
We don’t need to erode the lines between law enforcement, which is subject to longstanding constitutional constraints, and national security, which largely isn’t because it isn’t dealing with US citizens. We are slowly eroding the line between the two, and I think that is dangerous.
I thought President Obama’s kill list included an American Taliban or al-Qaida. And didn’t the Supreme Court put restrictions even on Guantanamo Bay?
I think the constitutional constraints you are talking about must include more than a few that are controlled mostly by the traditions of the political branches. Then there should not be much danger in the long run because the courts would put a limit. I believe this is where our assumptions are irreconcilable.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Hmm, I was not expecting my stronger argument to fail. Fine, internet crime alone doesn’t justify Department of Homeland Security involvement.
That’s because you didn’t bother to check the mission of the HDS.
The possibility of any type of foreign involvement, however, does.
The operative word being “possibility”, I gather. There is a possibility, no matter how slight and improbable, I suppose, that a local convenience store robbery in Greenbush, Wisconsin, carries the “possibility” of “foriegn involvement”. By your standard, the DHS charter extends to all crimes committed in the United States.
But let’s look at the facts of this prosecution:
First, the commission of certain crimes in the US by foreign nationals is grounds for deportation or revocation of entry rights. Investigating such matters is an ICE concern.
The complaint does not allege that any of the accused were foreign nationals.
More to the point, the exportation of criminal activity into the United States also falls under border security, whether that’s about financial support, goods and services, or intelligence. The fact that we are talking about electronic points of entry into the US as opposed to physical points of entry into the US is irrelevant if there is contact between things in the US and things not in the US. Someone smuggling concrete across the border to build a meth factory in New Mexico is much the same by the standard you named as someone inside Denmark building a website for a business in New York. Perhaps it should be just the US military patroling the Mexican border… but it’s not.
Again, the complaint does not allege any foreign activity of the type you describe. The complaint does not allege any of the conditions you posit: foreign nationals, offices outside the United States, web hosting outside the United States, and so on. The only “foreign involvement” in the prosecution is that the company allowed foreign nationals to advertise their services in foreign countries (e.g. an escort in Brussels might advertise his availability in Brussels) and, of course, the foreign nationals paid for the ads. The complaint doesn’t allege any violations of US borders. The complaint doesn’t allege international money laundering, and so on.
Again, I ask: What justification exists for the DHS, charged with national security, to play the lead role in this prosecution, instead of the FBI and other agencies charged with enforcement of federal laws, when there are no allegations of any national security threat?
I think the constitutional constraints you are talking about must include more than a few that are controlled mostly by the traditions of the political branches. Then there should not be much danger in the long run because the courts would put a limit. I believe this is where our assumptions are irreconcilable.
The constraints I’m talking about have imposed, for the most part, by Congress (e.g. the differing charters of the NSA and FBI when it comes to intelligence gathering on US citizens) and by Executive Order. The courts have a role in enforcing the constitutional rights of US citizens when the laws/orders allow/permit/authorize actions that violate those rights, and/or when agencies overstep their boundaries, which happens more frequently than you probably imagine.
We have been, in my opinion, seeing a slow drip, drip, drip since 9-11, in which the boundaries between national security and domestic law enforcement are eroded, and will be, eventually, replaced. The Patriot Act authorized domestic agencies to engage in the warrantless, pervasive surveillance of communications by and between US citizens that used to be restricted to surveillance of foreign nationals. The charters of domestic law enforcement agencies are quietly morphing from “law enforcement” to “national security” (e.g the change in FBI “mission” in 2014). Domestic law enforcement activites (.e.g “Stingray” operations) in local law enforcement operations are increasingly cloaked in secrecy by claims of “national security”, which precudes courts from ordering disclosure. It goes on and on and on.
The morph of Homeland Security into what appears, in the complaint and by every appearance based on known facts, into a prosecution of what is alleged to be a prostitution operation, seems to me to be yet another example of the drip, drip, drip. I think that’s grounds for concern. You, apparently, don’t. I believe this is where our assumptions are irreconcilable.
I’ve been asking very simple questions. Uncomfortable questions, to be sure. (As you put it, “You law types have balls, I’ll give you that.”) That’s what lawyers do.
But the role of lawyers and their private parts aside, the questions are important, as are the answers. Particularly the answers.
You move farther and farther from the facts of the case in trying to justify DHS involvement in this case, and I suggest you slow down and actually look at the facts of this case. If you do, instead of spinning a fantasy web of what might be possible, you might actually start asking the same questions that I’m asking.
posted by Jorge on
I am not familiar with the expression ACLU Jew. My opinion of the ACLU, which is very negative, comes from my observation of a gay Hispanic New Yorker (a Puerto Rican, no less!) who has been its Executive Director since the beginning of the Bush administration. My biggest problem with the ACLU, and this goes directly to the issues of the War on Terror and the Patriot Act, is that it never acknowledges the interests of public order or public safety, and never offers any guidance on what it believes are the legitimate means to achieve policy goals that are necessary. The most generous interpretation I can give it is that it instead tends to allege that the policy goals are themselves flawed. But that is really none of its business. When this country faces problems, it is the duty of the people and its government to solve them, when there is important work to be done, we must get it done. The ACLU doesn’t try to hold the government (and other parties it litigates against) to a limit. It tries to stop the government completely. I have a very big problem with that. And there have been multiple occasions in which it has been been apparent to me that its motivations are highly ideologically unbalanced (i.e., liberal-left).
Now the ACLU is a big organization and just like any big corrupt organization it is apparent that at times it can function for the right causes and the right reasons from time to time. But I take a look at that Executive Director and the collision course he has aimed at the Bush administration and those on the right and I say that I have very little time for what they say. Taken to its logical conclusion, the views of the ACLU would break this country logistically and socially. I expect at least some self-delusional degree of moderation from those I support. It’s enough for me to know that the ACLU is against this. Frankly I’d be disturbed if it wasn’t.
You’re not going to get the truth to come out without some kind of adversarial undertaking.
But I think Tom Jefferson 3rd asks for too much. I do not think the public needs to know what else Homeland Security has or was looking for. That information should go before a judge. Let the ACLU talk to Mr. Internet Pimp Boss and all his contacts, and let them sue DHS for the relief that was granted to Scott Walker: an order forcing the DHS to close its part of the investigation and destroy all evidence it has gathered.
But we all know they’d lose. Thus the need to prove this is a “political” problem. The NYT wants sex workers to be on the internet instead of the street? Well and good. The United States of America want to do things a different way. Laws are passed for a reason.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
You’re not going to get the truth to come out without some kind of adversarial undertaking.
I agree. And that is why challenging constitutional overreach by federal, state and local government is best served by bringing suit in a court of law. A court proceeding is, by definition, an “adversarial undertaking”.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
1. My complaints with the modern day ACLU are (largely) based on their involvement IN SOME NAMBLA related cases, and the fact that they come off — either because they really believe it or have a public relations problem or both — as people who would rather allow a suicide bomber on a bus, rather then do anything that might infringe on said bomber’s rights. I do not think that everything that the ACLU is bad or incorrect, I have agreed with what they have done on many issues.
2. If you have people buying/selling “escorts” (that may or may not be a thin front for prostitutes) within a global e-marketplace, you certainly have several potential red flags that may arise (beyond the fact that the prostitution itself is illegal).
I would argue that these are the type of red flags that Homeland should be involved with, if that is what is going on here (i.e. international money laundry, blackmail schemes, espionage etc.)
I would also argue that if this is simply a matter of cracking down on the global marketplace of e-escorts (e-prostitutes), it is best handled by some other federal department and or some other State agency.
I guess this puts me more in the middle of the folks who rush to assume that what Homeland is doing (in partnership with State agencies) is a unconstitutional waste of time or rush to assume that its all part of some valuable public service.
Personally, I believe that adult escort services or adult prostitution should be legalized and appropriately regulated/taxes.
I have never had any interest in paying for sex or paying for “companionship” (which is officially what a legal escort is suppose to be offering), but I never really bought the argument that the exchange of money for sex or companionship should be illegal per se.
I have gotten into some interesting debates with other people — including fellow feminists about this — but I have never been persuaded into thinking that the adult clients or the adult service providers should be treated as criminals per se.
However, that is a matter to be argued, debated and sorted out by the legislators and likely voters.
posted by Jorge on
I guess this puts me more in the middle of the folks who rush to assume that what Homeland is doing (in partnership with State agencies) is a unconstitutional waste of time or rush to assume that its all part of some valuable public service.
Oh, I have no problem with that.
My thing is that in since the days I moved to the right, I am highly skeptical of activists’ attempts to claim they’re the only side with the legal or moral high ground. I’ve read too many conservative intellectuals for that (liberal intellectuals, too). And I’ve always been skeptical of requests for conformity and unity. So I tend to take the view that if liberals take the moral high ground for a reason that’s speculative, it’s important to block quickly.
For libertarians you can just blindly throw up a shield. They usually say where they’re going to attack and why. Conservatives (rolls eyes)… conservatives dance around like Madonna at a concert in Puerto Rico, so you need to pin them down. Uh, I mean get them to commit.
posted by Jorge on
Imagine if this happened with a GOP president and mayor. LGBT media would be nothing but ‘Republicans’ war on gay sex!!!!’
I doubt it. Mayor Bloomberg appealed a court decision ordering gay marriage outright. And won. He went to an LGBT even (the same day he appealed XD) and got booed. And… that was it.
Mayor DB made a few choice comments condemning the Dominican Republic for deporting Dominican-born children of Haitians–you know, like the our 14th Amendment babies Donald Trump wants deported? Way to go Blasio! (Really, Jorge? I thought you were sitting out on that one) He got booed at the Dominican Day parade. It’s always a tempest in a teapot here in New York.
And weren’t people here just talking about Ed Koch? Ed Koch might be a fossil of a Democrat by now, but he still died a Democrat.
posted by Jorge on
That should read LGBT event
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Legally, an adult “escort service” is not automatically illegal, as long as it is not a front for prostitution. Yet, escort services often have a reputation — true or false — as being mere fronts for prostitution. In America, prostitution is illegal everywhere except certain places in Nevada.
If the owners/operators of Rentboys.com gets into “basic” escort service legal troubles, it would because of (a) prostitution, (b) involving persons below the legal age, (c) possible something to do with public health, if any of the escorts are not being ‘safe’.
Now, prostitution businesses can be used to help support or faciliate other (more global and more serious) crimes, which would reasonable involve Homeland.
Again, thus far the initial charges have focused on international or global e-prostitution. Assuming that these accusations are correct — for the sake of argument — I would still wonder why Homeland was involved (in a leadership role), unless the prostitution business was helping to support or faciliate something else, international money laundering, blackmail/espionage or something more then just an escort service busted for prostitution.
Since I do not automatically view all law enforcement as being corrupt, I assume that it is still early in the investigation and that additional charges may be filed (when new evidence comes to light) or someone might decide to make a plea deal in exchange for his or her testimony.
Politically, it could be very…”awkward”, for the names of the Escort Services clients (present or past) or even ‘service providers’ (present or past) to be named in open court.
So, if this is a situation where all Homeland plans to do is say, “Hey, we found an escort service that was involved with prostitution”, it is probably going to be very bad — politically — for the department.
Why? Well, two reasons. Firstly, if the Escort Service has any names worth mentioning, it will almost certainly do so (which could complicate things if any foreign diplomats end up being associated with the escort service)
Secondly, much of the public has this assumption — rightly or wrongly — that an escort service is some sort of front for prostitution. Simply put, the public already assumes that the escort service (or porn industry or sex hotline industry) is run by some pretty creepy and downright un-ethical people.
So, saying that “Hey, I have discovered that an escort service is involved with prostitution”, is a bit like saying that you discovered that the people who sell illegal drugs are not very nice people.
People are going to expect that Homeland is able to say more then just, “Look! These escorts are really prostitutes.” They are going to have to show that the business or the escorts were involved in something serious, like the serious stuff that the department is suppose to combat.
posted by tom Jefferson 3rd on
I thought that Bloomberg was an Independent, but I only have an outsider perspective on New York (city and state).
I am not sure that “e-prostitution” (e-escort?) qualifies as the sort of issue that politicians – courting the gay vote – need to get a position on.
In some countries anti-gay criminal laws are buried in laws against prostitution. This is not going to be the case in modern America.
Thus far Rentboy’s owners and operators appear to have gotten into legal trouble for allowing (if not encouraging) escorts to use the website to find people willing to pay for sex.
The complaint – interesting read – argues that the owners/operators knew what the escorts were doing, even gave advice to escorts (them that pay) on how they can use the website to seek out clients, while still being able to pay lip service to begin a legit escort service.
If the complaint is entirely accurate, then the Federal and State anti prostitution law was broken, and the websites owners/operators knew full well what was going on.
The involvement of Homeland would seem to suggest that
Something more serious is going on then escort-turned-prostitute.
posted by Jorge on
Hmm?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomberg
“He campaigned to weaken the city’s term limits law and was elected to his third term in 2009 as an independent candidate on the Republican ballot line.”
Before that, he was a long-time Democrat who became a Republican to run the first time.
When he appealed the same-sex marriage decision, which was in 2005, he was still a Republican. He said he appealed after his attorneys told him he was obligated to, but he accepted their reasoning as his own.
posted by Tom Jefferson 3rd on
In the 1990s, when Giuliani campaigned to “clean up” parts of New York city, I suspect some gay and straight people did complain about the lose of local escort services, adult bookstores and the like.
If their was no out cry over a Republican war on gay sex – as Stephen put it – it was probably because the Internet was slowly becoming something for non-nerds to play with, and people generally liked what businesses replaced the old businesses.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
My complaints with the modern day ACLU are (largely) based on their involvement IN SOME NAMBLA related cases …
Defending freedom of speech necessarily entails defending unpopular speech and the constitutional right of unpopular, despised people to speak their minds, and it is, as Lori pointed out to you, the most unpopular speech that most often requires defense. Speaking out in favor of Mom, Apple Pie and the American Way isn’t usually suppressed by government. Speaking out in favor of “man-boy love” or “God hates FAGs” often does. So like it or not, Tom, get over it. NAMBLA’s members enjoy the same constitutional protection that you do, and if you let the government erode the constitutional protections granted to NAMBLA’s members (or Westboro Baptist’s members, for that matter), it won’t be long before yours are curtailed, too.
… and the fact that they come off — either because they really believe it or have a public relations problem or both — as people who would rather allow a suicide bomber on a bus, rather then do anything that might infringe on said bomber’s rights.
That’s mostly Fox News crap, Tom, but I would ask you to think about this: Although the government has the power to stop a suicide bomber, constitutional protections aside, what happens after the immediate threat is curtailed? Isn’t the suicide bomber, assuming that he/she is a US citizen, entitled to the same constitutional protections that you and I are entitled to? Ditto for serial killers, child rapists, nutcase preachers who advocate killing gays/lesbians, and other citizens who should probably be kicked into next Sunday?
I do not think that everything that the ACLU is bad or incorrect, I have agreed with what they have done on many issues.
It is the cases which you don’t agree with that you should be thinking about most carefully, doing a little soul-searching perhaps.
If I remember right, you are a political science major, and pre-law. If you follow through with law school, you will be asked to defend the rights, sooner or later, of someone you personally have every reason to despise. If you are a good lawyer, you will rise to the occassion. That’s no different than what the ACLU does, so think about it.
As a young lawyer, I was asked to be part of a legal team assembled to defend a Nazi prison camp guard, now a US citizen, against being stripped of his citizenship rights and deported. You can imagine how I felt about him, given my ethnicity. But he deserved a first-rate defense, and he got it, although the government prevailed, and I’m proud to have been part of the team that defended him. I’ve worked on defending a lot of people I wouldn’t give the time of day to in ordinary circumstances — Charles Keating, who was at the time perhaps the most despised person in America, comes to mind — and I don’t regret any of it a bit.
If you’ve paid any attention to what I’ve written on IGF over the years, you’ll have noticed that I am very much a proponent of “equal means equal” under the Constitution. Every citizen deserves equal protection under the law. I didn’t get to that point naval gazing; I got there through a lifetime of advocacy. If you do become a lawyer and practice for a lifetime, as I have, you’ll come to that point, too, I hope.
posted by Tom Jefferson 3rd on
The KKK or NAMBLA does not have the right to commit (violent or property) crimes or encourage others to do so.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
True. But NAMBLA did neither in the case defended by the ACLU.