Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, if the government does it, it's OK. There is no crime if the FBI puts up pictures of naked kids. Hopefully, they included pictures of the FBI staff's kids. Our all powerful government has indeed become pathetic and above the law.
---------------
...the FBI became a major distributor of child pornography to catch people who look at it, thereby committing a more serious crime than the people it arrested.
But federal prosecutors supposedly do, and here they are bringing cases that, by their own lights, required the FBI to victimize children thousands of times. Each time the FBI “distributed” an image, it committed a federal crime that is punishable by a mandatory minimum sentence of five years and a maximum sentence of 20 years.
In a 2002 New York University Law Review article, Howard Anglin argued that victims of child pornographers have legal grounds to sue FBI agents who mail images of them to targets of undercover investigations. “If, as courts have held, the children depicted in child pornography are victimized anew each time it changes hands, this practice inflicts further injuries on the children portrayed in the images,” Anglin wrote. “The practice of distributing child pornography in undercover operations exposes federal agents to potential civil liability and undermines the integrity of the criminal justice system.”
Excess in the pursuit of justice is nothing new in our laws and in how those laws are enforced.
J. Edgar Hoover's FBI is a classical example of over-excess in everything Hoover believed to be a threat, with no regard to illegality at all. If Hoover didn't see something in our society as a threat, then neither did the FBI.
That's how spies during the World Wars were able to get away with as much as they did. Hoover saw his job as being a fighter against organized civilian crime. Agents of foreign powers were someone else's job, even though the FBI was charged with that responsibility.
Secrecy is an integral part of investigative law enforcement at some point in every investigation. The more layers of secrecy that exist, the easier it is for someone like Hoover to assume powers that should not be theirs alone, and the easier it is to ignore other powerful areas of criminality and misdeeds that can harm our society.
All of us have had thoughts of something illegal in our lives. Who hasn't ever thought of getting revenge on someone for something? Who hasn't been curious about how someone else acts, or does not, on these feelings? Who has never been curious about the dark side that others have, even if we don't want to explore it ourselves, much less go there?
There's a might fine line between enticement and entrapment, especially on the internet, where all fantasies can be looked over. Our curiosity is ingrained into our species, especially when we become curious about things we find appalling.
Thoughts do not always lead to actions in anything, whether innocent and legal or as perverted and illegal.
When thoughts become criminalized, there's no end to it. I always thought punishment for looking at child porn without no corresponding actions that followed the viewing of it was crazy.
All crime is action. Thought is not action, even if some action, like a few strokes on a keyboard, comes from thought. Our punishments must match the action of the crime that was committed that followed the criminal thought.
Inducement is an action. Inducing another to commit a crime must be based on the action that follows, not the mental workings of the mind that thinks over the inducement. The more secrecy there is, the more responsibility our law enforcement has to maintain to keep from stepping over the line they created in the obligation to protect us all.
Excess in the pursuit of justice is nothing new in our laws and in how those laws are enforced.
J. Edgar Hoover's FBI is a classical example of over-excess in everything Hoover believed to be a threat, with no regard to illegality at all. If Hoover didn't see something in our society as a threat, then neither did the FBI.
That's how spies during the World Wars were able to get away with as much as they did. Hoover saw his job as being a fighter against organized civilian crime. Agents of foreign powers were someone else's job, even though the FBI was charged with that responsibility.
Secrecy is an integral part of investigative law enforcement at some point in every investigation. The more layers of secrecy that exist, the easier it is for someone like Hoover to assume powers that should not be theirs alone, and the easier it is to ignore other powerful areas of criminality and misdeeds that can harm our society.
All of us have had thoughts of something illegal in our lives. Who hasn't ever thought of getting revenge on someone for something? Who hasn't been curious about how someone else acts, or does not, on these feelings? Who has never been curious about the dark side that others have, even if we don't want to explore it ourselves, much less go there?
There's a might fine line between enticement and entrapment, especially on the internet, where all fantasies can be looked over. Our curiosity is ingrained into our species, especially when we become curious about things we find appalling.
Thoughts do not always lead to actions in anything, whether innocent and legal or as perverted and illegal.
When thoughts become criminalized, there's no end to it. I always thought punishment for looking at child porn without no corresponding actions that followed the viewing of it was crazy.
All crime is action. Thought is not action, even if some action, like a few strokes on a keyboard, comes from thought. Our punishments must match the action of the crime that was committed that followed the criminal thought.
Inducement is an action. Inducing another to commit a crime must be based on the action that follows, not the mental workings of the mind that thinks over the inducement. The more secrecy there is, the more responsibility our law enforcement has to maintain to keep from stepping over the line they created in the obligation to protect us all.
Were you ever in the miltiary? Any other posters here? I guess that would make you or any others murderers or involved in some way since you know...the who gov. immunity thing is lame.
Were you ever in the miltiary? Any other posters here? I guess that would make you or any others murderers or involved in some way since you know...the who gov. immunity thing is lame.
I fully agree with your last words. I hope I didn't imply otherwise, but I guess I didn't emphasize my personal feelings enough.
Yup. I served 4 years in the Navy, and never killed anyone, or even was in a situation where that would have been a possibility. But I get your point, even though it's a real sketchy one.
I was fully prepared to kill another for my country when I enlisted if called upon to do so, and I would much sooner kill the other guy for his country than die for mine. But, if necessary, I would die for my country too.
Those were my thoughts. My thoughts never translated into any actions, but only from events that were completely beyond my control. Given the slightest twist of fate, I could have been shooting at Vietnamese from a riverine boat on the Mekong.
I was the only guy in my boot camp company to qualify for basic marksmanship on my single day at the rifle range, and was checked out by some SEALs while in radio school because of that. I'm 6'3"- about 5" too tall to be a good SEAL, but doubly qualified for riverine service, a branch that always needed radiomen who could shoot straight. Only the vagaries of of the military saved me.
I'm thankful things transpired as they did. But there is a real distinction between murder and killing for one's country, so to me, that's nothing but a red herring of yours. Many soldiers have killed others in war, but never in crime after leaving the service.
You're entitled to post a red herring, though. Just as you aren't obligated to serve in the military.
What troubles me the most is criminalizing thought. If a thought does not predicate an action, making thought a criminal offense is a breach of the most inalienable right we all have here- the freedom to think as we want, even when pondering the worst parts of humanity imaginable.
I fully agree that immunity is lame- it's much more than just lame, in fact. I see it as a great danger to our freedoms, even though I find the thought of child porn the most perverted thing of all.
Anyone who ever acts on that perverted fantasy needs to be locked up forever. But if a person only lives in the fantasy, no matter how perverse, and never acts on it, I can't see it as a crime.
I do see it as a mental illness, and I think it should be treated. Involuntarily, if a professional decides there is any potential in a person for acting out the fantasy. Prison isn't going to do anything but remove them temporarily in either case.
I see the FBI's entrapment as nothing but a government sanctioned criminal action when it comes to only viewing child porn. I hate the thought of corrupting our law enforcement personnel as much as I hate child porn itself. No matter how good the intentions were, it's a bad law.
Yes, if the government does it, it's OK. There is no crime if the FBI puts up pictures of naked kids. Hopefully, they included pictures of the FBI staff's kids. Our all powerful government has indeed become pathetic and above the law.
---------------
...the FBI became a major distributor of child pornography to catch people who look at it, thereby committing a more serious crime than the people it arrested.
But federal prosecutors supposedly do, and here they are bringing cases that, by their own lights, required the FBI to victimize children thousands of times. Each time the FBI “distributed” an image, it committed a federal crime that is punishable by a mandatory minimum sentence of five years and a maximum sentence of 20 years.
In a 2002 New York University Law Review article, Howard Anglin argued that victims of child pornographers have legal grounds to sue FBI agents who mail images of them to targets of undercover investigations. “If, as courts have held, the children depicted in child pornography are victimized anew each time it changes hands, this practice inflicts further injuries on the children portrayed in the images,” Anglin wrote. “The practice of distributing child pornography in undercover operations exposes federal agents to potential civil liability and undermines the integrity of the criminal justice system.”
If somehow you're added to an FBI investigation. Then they send you imagery you are being investigated for. Then they can enter your home seize those images and prosecute for Child Pornography violations?
Am I missing something? Because if not, then what stops the FBI suppressing people they think need suppressing?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
