View Full Version : CNN:1700 Pentagon Employees PURCHASED Child Pornography! (Why Is This Not A Bigger Story?)
WarDog
01-07-2011, 10:12 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7qTBkA8X_E&feature=player_embedded
Anti Federalist
01-07-2011, 10:14 PM
Why is it not a bigger story?
Because, unless you insult certain protected sensibilities that the regime throws out there to keep us mundanes on our toes, the ruling class is exempt from the laws that would ruin any of us "little people".
coastie
01-07-2011, 11:16 PM
:confused: So wait. 5200 out of at least ~24,000 employed there. :eek:
I'll admit I didn't read the link, but actually purchased child porn, from .gov computers I'm assuming? Has this been confirmed? If so, YIKES.
specialkornflake
01-08-2011, 01:13 AM
If I understand correctly, some purchased this using a government email address? A company would process this type of transaction? Did the purchasers use all valid information on the payment? Perhaps are we dealing with stuff mislabeled as child porn much the way people are now thrown onto the sex offender list? Perhaps some porn company didn't complete the required paperwork or something?
tangent4ronpaul
01-08-2011, 01:27 AM
Perhaps are we dealing with stuff mislabeled as child porn
When WikiLeaks published all those Internet black lists, they found over half of the URL's were of young looking legal porn. Also, what is "legal" varies from country to country. In places like Germany and Holland, 16 is legal and it's an international market. Now, if we are talking 8yo, that's totally different, but I suspect most of this is of teens of "legal" age or not.
-t
JoshLowry
01-08-2011, 01:45 AM
Wow.
Brooklyn Red Leg
01-08-2011, 01:49 AM
The problem I have with this is that its, yet again, an unequal application of our stupid laws. None of this SHOULD be illegal (no collection of pixels, no matter how repellent someone else finds them, should be). I don't want these people prosecuted. I want our stupid assed laws concerning this stuff overturned as they are clear and blatant violations of the 1st Amendment. I know I'm probably going to receive negative rep for this, but this is how it is.
JoshLowry
01-08-2011, 01:58 AM
Looks like 5200 names were on a list.
They investigated 3500 and came up with 260 something convictions.
They did not investigate 1700 of those. That doesn't mean 1700 Pentagon employees all bought child porn, does it?
The thread title and youtube video are inaccurate. I'm not sure why Mox would title that video with 5200. Then again I don't know much about this case, it's rather blurry.
t0rnado
01-08-2011, 08:26 AM
The problem I have with this is that its, yet again, an unequal application of our stupid laws. None of this SHOULD be illegal (no collection of pixels, no matter how repellent someone else finds them, should be). I don't want these people prosecuted. I want our stupid assed laws concerning this stuff overturned as they are clear and blatant violations of the 1st Amendment. I know I'm probably going to receive negative rep for this, but this is how it is.
It shouldn't be illegal, but these people should be fired for their hypocrisy. The real problem is that our taxes fund their child porn.
roho76
01-08-2011, 08:41 AM
I think the main problem here his focussing on child porn. Our government should not allow access to porn on government computers at all. Remember the SEC porn incident during the economic meltdown. They had to replace HHD's just to fit all the porn and then they burned it to discs also. So if 20% of an agency is purchasing "child" porn how many are just watching porn in general? I'd say close to 95% with numbers like that.
Feeding the Abscess
01-08-2011, 10:54 AM
The government diddled while America burned.
HOLLYWOOD
01-08-2011, 11:04 AM
Because those Pedo-Porners support "The Machine" with uncompromising devoted LOVE.
It's a Banana Republic when the 3rd branch of government now picks and choses who get prosecuted/convicted and pretty much lets government employees walk, right Charlie Rangel, Cheney, Wall St., on & on?
pcosmar
01-08-2011, 11:25 AM
(Why Is This Not A Bigger Story?)
Same reason this isn't.
http://www.francesfarmersrevenge.com/stuff/archive/oldnews2/boystown/
or the MK-Ultra programs ( child abuse was central )
http://naffoundation.org/MKULTRA%20Research.htm
Or the CPS snatching children.
These are not at all unrelated.
:mad:
Inkblots
01-08-2011, 11:43 AM
Looks like 5200 names were on a list.
They investigated 3500 and came up with 260 something convictions.
They did not investigate 1700 of those. That doesn't mean 1700 Pentagon employees all bought child porn, does it?
The thread title and youtube video are inaccurate. I'm not sure why Mox would title that video with 5200. Then again I don't know much about this case, it's rather blurry.
That's not quite accurate: I think they said they only cross-checked 3500 of 5200 names to confirm that they were Pentagon contractors or employees; they confirmed 260 of them were, but subsequently only 70 of those 260 were investigated.
This whole story is very shocking, thanks for highlighting it.
idirtify
01-08-2011, 11:46 AM
(Why Is This Not A Bigger Story?)
Because the smart criminals have learned that no one watches the watchers and have infiltrated their ranks. Or if you prefer: “because the government is populated by criminals”.
Regarding whether viewing kiddie porn should really be a crime, here’s the issue. Whatever standard the people are held to, the authorities should be held to a HIGHER standard. I know of a guy that is sitting in federal prison for 3 years (minimum) for this very thing. Under that standard, all of the guilty feds (3500 or 260, or whatever it is) should go to prison for 5 years minimum.
vita3
01-08-2011, 12:26 PM
Whittle down the criminals & waste
ItsTime
01-08-2011, 12:46 PM
My guess is a lot of it was mislabled child porn. Much like the guy who had legal porn on his computer and was charged with having child pornography. Turned out the, after "government experts" (doctors) testified that the images were that of a child under the age of 18, the porn actress came and testified and turns out she was well into her mid 20s.
idirtify
01-08-2011, 03:15 PM
My guess is a lot of it was mislabled child porn. Much like the guy who had legal porn on his computer and was charged with having child pornography. Turned out the, after "government experts" (doctors) testified that the images were that of a child under the age of 18, the porn actress came and testified and turns out she was well into her mid 20s.
My guess doesn’t give such benefit of doubt to government people. Regarding them, I usually find it’s more accurate to assume the worst. My guess is that the porn was obviously kiddie porn, with actors who were obviously pre-adolescent, and that a large percent of people occupying government positions are true pedophiles.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.