Slashdot Mirror

He has video of what are presumably illegal acts by anti-G8 demonstrators,

Here's why: the FBI probably uses this technique, in some cases, to track down child porn.

No, most child pornography is distributed by law enforcement. Mostly by the FBI's Baltimore office.

Not sure if declassified documents have already been placed online for the FBI or NSA, but the FBI, NSA and CIA FOIA sites might be good places to start. The CIA does have a few new documents online. Pick your favorite incident and happy hunting!

No, I'm saying 911 was a single event, and if you ask me it looks more like an event planned against hte american people by their own government in an effort to galvanize them against an invisible enemy, in order to gain a more absolute form of dictatorial control. That's what 911 looks like, if you ask me.

Fighting a war against an invisible enemy, and using that as a justification for searching everyone who passes through an airport, train station, you name it, already encroaches on basic civil liberties. The fact that the enemy is unseen makes it all the more insidious when the right wingers are asking for permission to spy domestically. It gives them the same sort of blank check request that joseph mccarthy had back in the commie witch hunts during the 50's. Have you such a short memory for history as to overlook the terrible right wing history of the 50's?

here. this is the recent murder rate. it's been close to 16000 for a long time.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/v iolent_crime/murder.html

3030 killed in 911. that's the only terror attack ever done on that scale on us soil. you think that's a good reason to say "screw civil liberty, privacy and forget about not getting searched. forget about the right to carry a can of coke or a letter opener on an airplane. forget all that it's just not worth it.

you are tire kicking. your whole post is just tire kicking. look at the whole argument and fill in the gaps with your own mind.

Secret trials and detentions, patriot act, roving wiretaps, expanded police powers to read things like email, gone to an airport recently?. there's alot more than I know about but there is plenty.

Sheesh. Wake up, people.

Our experience in the investigation of these crimes also signals a strong correlation between child pornography offenders and molesters of children. In Operation Candyman, for example, of the 90 people arrested thus far for their participation in the child pornography e-group, 13 of them who chose to make inculpatory statements admitted to molesting a combined total of 48 children http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/heimbach050 102.htm This is a classic fallacy of the "Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc" argument ("after this, therfore because of this") resulting from a self-selected group. You arrest people for child porn offences and, big surprise, you find that some of them have molested children. But what exactly does that prove? That child porn made them molest children or is it rather that their desire to molest children made them view child porn? Child porn does not sate a desire to molest children, it inculcates this desire. What, apart from the above fallacy, is your proof of this? This is the same argument that the UK Government is using to try to ban "extreme pornography" because Graham Coutts was convicted of the murder of Jane Longhurst after "viewing sites like Necrobabes". The argument was that because he'd looked at the pictures, he then went and killed her. But his conviction has been ruled as Unsafe by the UK Courts of Appeals because there is no proof of this claim. If banning artificial child porn makes child porn hard to come by and thereby dampens the demand for the real thing (or molestation), then it's a great idea. Even if it doesn't, I'm a little tired of this idea that free speech extends to pornography. Somehow I doubt that was original intent of the Founding Fathers And I'm a little tired of the idea that "Freedom of Speech" means "Freedom to say things that *you* agree with", but not otherwise.

Indeed -- argued both ways, no less! It could alter the behavior by making them want to act on their urges with real children more, or it could alter the behavior by satisfying their urges so they no longer feel the need to go after real kids.

This sounds like the kind of wishful-thinking with which most Slashdot readers react to anti-porn news of any kind.

Our experience in the investigation of these crimes also signals a strong correlation between child pornography offenders and molesters of children. In Operation Candyman, for example, of the 90 people arrested thus far for their participation in the child pornography e-group, 13 of them who chose to make inculpatory statements admitted to molesting a combined total of 48 children

http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/heimbach050 102.htm

Child porn does not sate a desire to molest children, it inculcates this desire. If banning artificial child porn makes child porn hard to come by and thereby dampens the demand for the real thing (or molestation), then it's a great idea. Even if it doesn't, I'm a little tired of this idea that free speech extends to pornography. Somehow I doubt that was original intent of the Founding Fathers.

Very well. Commence flaming.

-stormin

Isn't it sad that we need to get a media blitz to get someone arrested (guilty or not) for murder. As of December 4,2006 there were 142 murders in Oakland, CA, this is the city where Han Reiser lives in and no one is getting a media frenzy over the 141 other murders. Unfortunately, you have noticed the people that were murdered in these media frenzies were white, Laci Peterson and Nina Reiser. I hate to throw the race card out but living in Oakland, CA most of my life I see the whole thing what is happening here. Also notice this murder was committed by white person on a white person, so was Scott and Laci Peterson. The only recent murder...,er homicide, er manslaughter (call whatever you like he is still dead) that had this much media frenzy of a non-white person of murdered is the guy in New York, NY that was shot by police.
I hate to say it but in America in 2006 only people with money and they are white are the people who can get media to give a damn about 1 or so "sensational" murders where in the US according to the FBI in 2005 we had about 16,692 murders. Here is the URL to FBI about these statistic: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/violent_cri me/murder_homicide.html
I have moved out of Oakland, CA moved to another city but looking back how come we got so complacent about murder of people and this is the most troubling in my view.

It's also the most statistically inaccurate comment. It's probably more inaccurate statistically than the software we're discussing.

"Of those incidents in which the murder weapon was specified, 70.3 percent of the homicides that occurred in 2004 were committed with firearms. Of those, 77.9 percent involved handguns, 5.4 percent involved shotguns, and 4.2 percent involved rifles. Approximately 12.4 of the murders were committed with other types or unspecified types of firearms. Knives or cutting instruments were used in 14.1 percent of the murders; personal weapons, such as hands, fists, and feet, were used in 7.0 percent of murders, and blunt objects (i.e., clubs, hammers, etc.) were used in 5.0 percent of the homicides. Other weapons, such as poison, explosives, narcotics, etc., were used in 3.6 percent of the murders. (Based on Table 2.9.)"

So automatically the GPs post is flat out wrong. Second off I didn't see the statistics for the age of the offender and if he could even own a gun or not. I also didn't see a statistic for how many of those were unregistered and registered so I can't comment on the legality of any of that or how effective the laws are. I also (sadly) couldn't find a statistic for the number of firearm owners who commit murder but I can damn well bet it's not 100% as the GP insinuates. I understand that some people have an irrational fear of guns but please don't don't spread your FUD or I'm going to push to have knives and even your own bare hands outlawed as they are used in 21.1% of murders.

I even have a source!

Police Use of Nondeadly Force to Arrest

RESISTING ARREST

Passive NonCompliance

By far, the greater number of cases involving police use of non-deadly force are those in which it is alleged that the suspect resisted or attempted to evade arrest. This is undoubtedly due to the fact that the suspects are not posing immediate threats to the officers or others necessarily but are simply being noncompliant.

An example is Forrester v. City of San Diego,19 where police officers used "pain compliance" techniques to arrest several anti-abortion demonstrators who had ignored police commands to disperse. Before using any force, the officers warned the demonstrators that they would be subject to pain compliance measures if they did not move. Demonstrators were told that such measures would hurt, but they could reduce the pain by standing up.

When the demonstrators did not comply, the officers used pain compliance techniques to remove them. In their lawsuit, the arrestees complained of injuries to their hands and arms, including bruises, pinched nerves, and one broken wrist. They contended that dragging and carrying them would have been more reasonable.

A jury returned a verdict in favor of the city and the police offi-cers, and that verdict was upheld by the federal appellate court for three reasons. First, the court observed that "the nature and quality of the intrusion upon the arrestees' personal security" was not excessive; rather, "...the force consisted only of physical pressure administered on the demonstrators' limbs in increasing degrees, resulting in pain."20

Second, the city had a legitimate interest in quickly dispersing and removing lawbreakers with the least amount of injury to the police and others, even though many of the crimes were misdemeanors. Third, the court noted that the decision not to drag and carry was based upon the officer's desire to maximize police control over the anticipated large crowds and to avoid back injuries that often are sustained by officers in those situations.

Finally, the court stated: "Police officers...are not required to use the least intrusive degree of force possible....Whether officers hypothetically could have used less painful, less injurious, or more effective force in executing an arrest is simply not the issue."21

Living in a free country doesn't give you license to ignore the law or to refuse arrest, or to refuse to comply with the lawful orders of the police even if you are engaged in civil disobedience, non-violent protest, or passive resistance. The police are legally able to inflict pain in various circumstances to gain compliance with their orders. That includes the use of tasers to counter passive resistance, which seems to be fairly common in police department use of force policies, including at UCLA.

Officers who have received departmental training can use Tasers in the drive-stun mode "to eliminate physical resistance from an arrestee in accomplishing an arrest or physical search ... when a skirmish line is deployed and/or for pain compliance against passive resisters," and "to stop a dangerous animal" according to the policy posted on the UCPD's Web site.

If you listen carefully to the video, it certainly seems that Tabatabainejad is refusing to be taken into custody, resisting arrest, at least through the third taser jolt if not longer. He kee

Those guys shouldn't be that hard to find with enough law enforcement effort. Get a credit card from a cooperating bank. Put a trace on it. Buy some Viagra from a spam. Watch where the money goes, which is probably some bank in a high-crime country. Visit the bank and talk to them. Threaten to have their abilty to process credit cards cut off. Pry the actual payee out of them. Discover that it's another intermediary and start over.

This is what we pay the FBI for. This is why the FBI has field offices outside the US. This is why the Financial Crimes Information Network exists.

The FBI's Internet-related criminal enforcement unit has gotten soft. They sit up in Baltimore and send out child pornography, then go after the people they've entrapped. The process is even mostly automated now. That's an easy way to get their stats up, and fits the Bush administration's "regulate sex, not business" mindset, but doesn't solve crimes that have victims. Something to push on after Jan. 20, when the Democrats take Congress and can start asking hard questions of the executive branch.

Those guys shouldn't be that hard to find with enough law enforcement effort. Get a credit card from a cooperating bank. Put a trace on it. Buy some Viagra from a spam. Watch where the money goes, which is probably some bank in a high-crime country. Visit the bank and talk to them. Threaten to have their abilty to process credit cards cut off. Pry the actual payee out of them. Discover that it's another intermediary and start over.

This is what we pay the FBI for. This is why the FBI has field offices outside the US. This is why the Financial Crimes Information Network exists.

The FBI's Internet-related criminal enforcement unit has gotten soft. They sit up in Baltimore and send out child pornography, then go after the people they've entrapped. The process is even mostly automated now. That's an easy way to get their stats up, and fits the Bush administration's "regulate sex, not business" mindset, but doesn't solve crimes that have victims. Something to push on after Jan. 20, when the Democrats take Congress and can start asking hard questions of the executive branch.

As a potential solution to rising gun fatalities, maybe we could use it to coat bullets.

"Gun Fatalities" are decreasing.

Thank you. I'll be here all week.

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242

Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.

Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

"very high frequency", now that's kind of vague.

Do you have any real stats? It doesn't appear that they are reported on the FBI's Uniform Crime Report.

(B), "sexually explicit conduct" means actual or simulated-- (i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; (ii) bestiality; (iii) masturbation; (iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or (v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

There are simply too many criminals and too many crimes at this point in history.

Baloney. Violent crime has been on a downwards trend for at least the last ten years.

.

rjhubs spouted, "I am wondering why askslashdot is being used to push agendas/post news stories, i know this isn't a new thing, but aren't there real questions to be answered? Why couldn't this story just be a normal news submission?"

If one of the kids had been yours, I don't think you'd ask that question. Matter of fact, just ask a parent who cares about their children what they think of this story.

I don't care if the kids chopped the d@mn tree down. Their actions do Not warrant the response.

Oh and think of /. sort of like a newspaper. Just because there is a story on the page doesn't mean you Have To Read It. Or Comment.

Personally (if it had occurred in the US) I think the officers involved should be prosecuted for abuse under the color of authority.

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights/color.htm

The FBI would only make an arrest with a warrant if there was a violation of Federal Law over which they have jurisdiction.

http://www.fbi.gov/aboutus/faqs/faqsone.htm

The closest the FBI comes to having that power is they can ask for a Federal Arrest Warrant if the suspect has crossed state lines or attempts to leave the country to flee prosecution or confinement.

This is the relevant FAQ question about this precise issue which seems to have fired up the anti-Bush moonbats:

"Can I obtain detailed information about a current FBI investigation I see in the news?

No. Such information is protected from public disclosure, in accordance with current law and DOJ and FBI policy. This policy preserves the integrity of the investigation and the privacy of individuals involved in the investigation prior to any public charging for violations of the law. It also serves to protect the rights of people not yet charged with a crime."

You've thrown in robber and aggravated assault - two crimes where nobody is murdered.

"murder" != "murder + robbery + assault"

So, since you can't even tell the difference between a murder and a robbery, WTF should anyone give any credence to ANY of your other retarded pseudo-rationalizations?

Also, the 2003 report was the first one from google - I didn't "cherry-pick", and I resent the implication.

Link to comparable stats for 2004: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/documents/04tbl2-9a .xls

Murder - 2004
Total: 14,141
Firearms: 9,326, AGAIN, the #1 MURDER WEAPON, 2/3 OF ALL VICTIMS.
... everything else pales into insignificance ...

Even more interesting, of the 9,326 murders committed with firearms, 1,044 were with "firearm type not stated". Removing them from the stats, of the remaining 8282 murders:
393 were with rifles
507 with shotguns
7,265 with hand guns - almost 90%

Hand guns - the #1 choice of 9 out of 10 people who commit murder with firearms.

Instead of bloviating, read the stats. Your claim that most murders were committed with "weapons of convenience" as opposed to firearms in general, and hand guns in particular, is so full of shit it its not funny.

Hand guns ARE causitive, because they make it too easy to kill. Point and shoot. Deprive people of hand guns, and the people who use hand guns to get "justice" or revenge would have to go to the cops instead of taking the law into their own hands. The current murder rate would be unsustainable.

Most of the people who resort to guns have self-image issues to begin with. That's why guns are also "penis extenders", and we call them "gun nuts" for a reason.

you need to go back to school and learn a bit about the scientific method. Especially that part about "empiricism".

And you need to go back to school and learn how to count higher than your toes. The FBI stats say a different story than what you claim.

Your "More than half of these murders were committed with what are known as 'weapons of opportunity', implying that these weren't people who were shot to deathm is a total load of crap, according to the very first link I downloaded from the FBI. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/03cius.htm

Go grab the spreadsheet - get "an edumication": http://www.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=/ucr/cius_03 /xl/03tbl2-10.xls

Total murder victims: 14,408
FIREARMS: 9,638 THE # 1 CAUSE - 66.89% OF ALL MURDERS
Knives and cutting instruments: 1,816
Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.): 651
Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.) 946
Poison: 9
Explosives:4
Fire: 163
Narcotics:41
Stangulation: 184
Asphyxiation: 128
Other or not stated: 828

In other words, your #1 "weapon of opportunity" is ... no surprise here ... a gun.

It's easy to kill with a gun. Its a LOT harder to kill with a knife or a baseball bat. Get rid of the guns, and you get rid of the "easy kills", as well as making it a lot riskier for someone to try to kill someone else.

you need to go back to school and learn a bit about the scientific method. Especially that part about "empiricism".

And you need to go back to school and learn how to count higher than your toes. The FBI stats say a different story than what you claim.

Your "More than half of these murders were committed with what are known as 'weapons of opportunity', implying that these weren't people who were shot to deathm is a total load of crap, according to the very first link I downloaded from the FBI. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/03cius.htm

Go grab the spreadsheet - get "an edumication": http://www.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=/ucr/cius_03 /xl/03tbl2-10.xls

Total murder victims: 14,408
FIREARMS: 9,638 THE # 1 CAUSE - 66.89% OF ALL MURDERS
Knives and cutting instruments: 1,816
Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.): 651
Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.) 946
Poison: 9
Explosives:4
Fire: 163
Narcotics:41
Stangulation: 184
Asphyxiation: 128
Other or not stated: 828

In other words, your #1 "weapon of opportunity" is ... no surprise here ... a gun.

It's easy to kill with a gun. Its a LOT harder to kill with a knife or a baseball bat. Get rid of the guns, and you get rid of the "easy kills", as well as making it a lot riskier for someone to try to kill someone else.

An investigation was conducted by the FBI regarding the famous physicist because of his affiliation with the Communist Party. Einstein was a member, sponsor, or affiliated with thirty-four communist fronts between 1937 and 1954. He also served as honorary chairman for three communist organizations.

You'll find a significant number of police officers are actually shot with their own guns. I think the vast majority of police would be in favor of a highly reliable system where a gun can only be fired by its owner.

For those who don't get it, I repeat: Majordomo is not "an underground spam network in the anarchist country". If you think this way, take your nose out of computer and travel the world, it's much different from what you think. Majordomo is a legal and respectable company (yes, it's reselling GoDaddy's services). On my part I'm an independent Mac shareware developer. Thanks Majordomo, now these domains are unblocked.

GoDaddy's actions look like, feel like, smell like, and in fact ARE real extortion. It's absolutely clear, this is one of their ways to earn money. This time they went too far, probably thinking that if Russia is far abroad, such actions won't be noticed. I would recommend to everyone never have any business with GoDaddy, and those who already use it as a registrar, switch immediately.

Did I get any response to my e-mail to GoDaddy? No. Did I get any excuses for their actions? No. Will I get a reimbursement for the loss of profits? No. Anyone who had the same problems with them, send a report at internic and FBI websites, and I hope that scum will be shutdown.

Bush and the Neo-cons don't give a fuck about any facts. If they say the sky is not blue, you are expected believe it as a matter of faith, even if the Neo-cons do not believe it themselves.

You don't have to call, the FBI has a page to submit tips.

The Taliban are not Al-Qaeda. There's a big, big difference between them. The Taliban are a bunch of Afghani madrassa kids, ignorant and almost illiterates, messing around within their own neighbourhoods and borders. Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan were a core of Arab fighters, some very-well educated (eg. Zawahiri is a Paediatrician fleunt in French and English, his father was a pharmacist, Atta had an Engineering PhD from a reputed German university, and his father was a lawyer; even the "muscle men" in 9/11 were multi-lingual graduates), some perhaps very rich (Bin Laden the son of a Billionaire), some even strikingly good-looking (like this 9/11 hijacker whom I remember a girl friend (white, American) going gaga over when she saw his pic http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/penttbom/ua93/alnamiah .jpg), some were suave and urbane and had Western girlfriends, who'd left their homes and countries and went after a world-class cause (fighting the undisputed superpower, what's bigger?!) for years if not decades. There's a big difference between them, and the two at times didn't get along; Al-Qaeda fighters think the Taliban are retarded. You don't need much conviction and determination to be a neighbourhood ignoramus, but to leave what many wish for (education, money, looks) behind and give it all up (your life included) for an idealist cause that you don't need and is against the odds, well, that's a very big deal. That's why I used Al-Qaeda as an ultimate example of what dedication it takes to stand up to a superpower government (and I'm not glamorising them here, but the facts are facts, for a revolutionarly organisation they are perhaps the best the world had ever seen in intelligence and sheer doggedness - and good luck to anyone who'd try to do something they couldn't do), I wouldn't have used the Taliban. Littlest league, biggest league; huge difference.

Let the Deconstruction begin!

the news

• DOJ Press Release on Detroit FBI's Public Website-March 29, 2006
• Nineteen Charged with Racketeering to Support Terrorist Organization

DETROIT - An indictment charging 19 individuals with operating a global racketeering conspiracy was unsealed in federal district court today, announced United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan Stephen J. Murphy. The indictment alleges that portions of the profits made from the illegal enterprise were given to Hizballah, a foreign terrorist organization. Nine of the individuals were arrested this morning.

[. . .]

An indictment is only a charge and is not evidence of guilt. A defendant is entitled to a fair trial in which it will be the government's burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

This is evidence of nothing, given this administration's miserable failures at securing terror convictions using due process of law, and their reprehensible practise of inhumane detainment of humans who have not been properly convicted in an equitable judicial process, in blatant violation of the 4th, 5th, 8th and 13th Amendments to the US Constitution.

The trials of Sami al-Arian and Sami al-Hussayen immediately stand out:

1. Peter Whoriskey, "Ex-Professor Won Court Case but Not His Freedom", Washington Post, December 14, 2005
2. Maureen O'Hagan, "A terrorism case that went awry", Seattle Times, November 22, 2004

Originalize this:

"The Habeas Corpus secures every man here, alien or citizen, against everything which is not law, whatever shape it may assume."

Thomas Jefferson - Letter to A.H. Rowan - September 26, 1798
The Writings of Thomas Jefferson - Definitive Edition"
Albert Ellery Bergh, Editor (1907) - Chapter 10 pg 61

"Why suspend the habeas corpus in insurrections and rebellions? The parties who may be arrested, may be charged instantly with a well-defined crime; of course, the judge will remand them. If the public safety requires that the government should have a man imprisoned on less probable testimony, in those than in other emergencies, let him be taken and tried, retaken and retried, while the necessity continues, only giving him redress against the government, for damages. Examine the history of England. See how few of the cases of the suspension of the habeas corpus law, have been worthy of that suspension. They have been either real treason, wherein the parties might as well have been charged at once, or sham plots, where it was shameful they should ever have been suspected. Yet for the few cases wherein the suspension of the habeas corpus has done real good, that operation is now become habitual, and the minds of the nation almost prepared to live under its constant suspension."

Thomas Jefferson - Letter to James Madison - July 31, 1788
ibid - Chapter 7 pg 97, 98

concrete

"US lists 10 foiled terror plots", BBC News, October 7, 2005

The White House has given details of 10 major terror plots that President Bush says have been foiled by the US and its allies since the 11 September attacks.

Mr Bush cited the disrupted plans in a speech, designed to boost support for the so-called war on terror.

[. . .]

But the sketchy details provided by the White House make it hard to assess how serious or advanced the plans were.

On further analysis:

John Diamond and Toni Locy, "

AP) Police in seven European countries struck Tuesday at a sophisticated child abuse and pornography ring dubbed "Shadowz Brotherhood," arresting 50 people and seizing computer equipment, CD-ROMs and videos, authorities said.

Police described the images created and distributed by the group as some of the most shocking they had ever seen. Members of the ring allegedly broadcast live pictures of abuse on the Internet and posted images of children, including babies, being sexually abused and tortured.

"In terms of the kind of material they are posting and allowing access to, it's the worst group I have ever encountered," said Detective Chief Supt. Len Hynds of Britain's National High-tech Crime Unit, which coordinated a yearlong investigation with the European police organization Europol.

I wouldn't suggest you go looking for it.

This "pedophilia in the internet" meme is actually more disgusting than adults having sex with children.

If you really believe that, your values put you in a very tiny minority, and near some very unsavory people.

Because a true pedophile can only harm a limited number of people, whereas the people who keep bringing the fear of pedophiles are the meanest evil bastards one can find in the world.

This guy had hundreds of pictures, which means hundreds of victims:

TALLAHASSEE - Attorney General Charlie Crist today announced the arrest of a Clay County convicted sex offender for violating his probation. Authorities arrested Robert Reed, a registered sex offender since 1999, after receiving a tip that he had child pornography on his computer and was distributing it over the internet. The case will be prosecuted by the Attorney General's Office of Statewide Prosecution.

A joint investigation by the Attorney General's CyberCrime Unit, the FBI Cyber Crime Task Force and the Florida Department of Corrections Probation and Parole Services revealed that Reed, 26, placed pornographic videos on the internet and made them available to others online. A search of Reed's computer was conducted, unearthing hundreds of images of child pornography. Reed was arrested by officers with Probation and Parole Services.

Children for sale documents an enormous problem.

The FBI documents an enormous problem:

Dr. Hernandez concluded that 76 percent of the child pornographers or travelers (those who travel or intend to travel interstate for the purpose of having sex with a minor) who participated in his study admitted to having committed contact sex crimes which went undetected by the criminal justice system. These offenders had an average of 30.5 child sex victims each. In fact, this group of offenders admitted to having molested a combined total of 1,433 victims without ever having been detected. That is not 1,433 more offenses - - it is 1,433 more victims. If you factor in the number of times they offended against each individual victim, the number would be significantly higher. In addition, while Dr. Hernandez' study lumped child pornographers and travelers in the same category, his data shows that the number of undetected sex crimes was significantly higher for child pornographers than it was for travelers. In short, child pornographers, who consisted of 49 of the 62 subjects, were responsible for the vast majority of the 1,433 victims reported for that group.

History has repeatedly demonstrated that you cannot open a door to censorship, because once you have it, who will

Just so we could get past the vague, liar thing, could you be more specific? Exactly what actual liberties do you think people are trying to take from you? Voting? Free speech? Free association? Freedom of religion? Any suggestion of quartering troops in your house?

As to the terrorism thing, the news there seems to be rather concrete, even if not well known, and at times disturbing. There is nothing vague about this at all.

Stopping the terrorists means the military can stand down, just like it did after WWI, WWII, Korea, Viet Nam, and the Cold War. The Army alone is about 30% smaller today than it was in the 80s even after the small boost it was given for this conflict. Why should this conflict be any different from the previous ones? Your theory about the whole purpose of the war against the terrorists being a fabricated excuse to spy on Americans in different political parties is nonesense. (Do you also believe that it was the US government that attacked the World Trade Center (both times)? How about the Murrah building in Oklahoma City? Faked the moon landings?) If you really believe that, why was Al Qaeda attacking during Clinton's term, and planning for more attacks, like 9/11? Do you think this is all a plot to keep the Libertarians down?

By the way, under the term "domestic political "enemies"", do you include Hezbollah, recently inconvenienced in Michigan? They do seem to love being in this country. I wonder what Al Qaeda is up to? Wouldn't it be great if someone was looking into this? I wonder who would be best...who could do it?

Stopping the terrorists means the military can stand down, just like it did after WWI, WWII, Korea, Viet Nam, and the Cold War. The Army alone is about 30% smaller today than it was in the 80s even after the small boost it was given for this conflict. Why should this conflict be any different from the previous ones? Your theory about the whole purpose of the war against the terrorists being a fabricated excuse to spy on Americans in different political parties is nonesense. (Do you also believe that it was the US government that attacked the World Trade Center (both times)? How about the Murrah building in Oklahoma City? Faked the moon landings?) If you really believe that, why was Al Qaeda attacking during Clinton's term, and planning for more attacks, like 9/11? Do you think this is all a plot to keep the Libertarians down?

By the way, under the term "domestic political "enemies"", do you include Hezbollah, recently inconvenienced in Michigan? They do seem to love being in this country. I wonder what Al Qaeda is up to? Wouldn't it be great if someone was looking into this? I wonder who would be best...who could do it?

So, let me get this straight...

You start off by telling us that you won't tell us what the real purpose of the program is (1), but you tell us that it isn't about national security (2). You tell us, wrongly, that Al Qaeda has nothing to fear from the actual program (3)+(A), not what you describe, which is the Total Information Awareness project. Apparently just on the edge of self-restraint, you let on that the program would be a powerful tool to blackmail members of Congress (4) but don't quite cross the line and tell us directly that political blackmail is the purpose. You finish off with comparisons to secret police, evil regimes, and the Nazi SS (5).

So, basically, you want people to believe that this is all part of a secret plan to subjugate the American people and political system to a new crypto-fascist regime (sorry), and not an actual intelligence program to protect the country.

Remarkably, you want people to believe that a Republican president with only three years left in office, ever, would convince a Republican led Senate and House, still containing members of an opposition party, to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to develop an infrastructure to blackmail themselves instead of developing an intelligence capability that would actually be useful to protect them. (I guess you think 9/11 and the anthrax attacks made no impression on them, right?)

What is even more remarkable is that you want us to believe that this is all unrelated to any attempt to stop the on-going efforts by Al Qaeda and its allies to plan and execute more terrorist attacks in the US, the infiltration of the US by hundreds of terrorist group members (who we occasionally catch) and the stated goal of Al Qaeda to kill 4,000,000 Americans. I expect that you also believe it would not help contain the intelligence agents in 3,000 front companies kept by just one foreign government spying on the US, let the lone the (tens of?)thousands more from the other countries on the planet.

You are about up in the league of having a pathological fear of firemen because they carry axes, but being unable to stop yourself from going into burning buildings because they are "warm & cheery" and have good light for reading. What is even more disturbing is that you convinced enough people to get your 5 mod. Ye gods!

1: That I will let the readers figure out as they read what is the truth about what is going on.
2: I would like to make clear that this effort had nothing to do with national security.
3: It is clear that Al Qaeda etc had nothing to fear from such a system.
4: The value of data to coerse a Congressman or a citizen or to produce "faked up" arrest data would be endless. The value to compromise the integrity of any democratic process and produce extortion is endless as well. (Please use your brain here: Ask why would a government want to do this? Ask what would they do this for?)
5: The level of it is deeper and more complete information on every living person on the planet than has been collected by the secret police of any terroristic evil regieme in history. The level of data here is beyond the wildest dreams of the NAZI SS in their worst days.
A: If Al Qaeda is hand delivering their messages all around the world, they won't be saying much.

That's it!

The real threat isn't coming from the tens of thousands Islamist extremist terrorists trained in Afghanistan by Al Qaeda, in Saddam's Iraq, and their associates (minus the captured ones). No!

The 9/11 attacks, the attack on the USS Cole, the Bali bombings, the Madrid bombings, the London bombings, the shoe bomb attempt, the US embassy bombings in Africa, the attacks and bombings in Saudi Arabia, the bombing in Jordan, the attacks in the Philippines, the Beslan attack, the dirty bomb plan, the plan to attack the soccer stadium in the UK, the plan to attack Heathrow, the 19 person ring just broken in Michigan, the hundreds of Hezbollah operatives in the US, including the recent Hezbollah Mexican border smuggling ring broken, and the rest all show its not the terrorists that are the problem!!

The real threat is that *cough* fantasy *cough* cabal in the White House which the "insiders" on Slashnut know are secretly planning to ignore the next election with mass destraction. (How this will actually work, nobody explains. The Constitution limits the term in office and provides for succession.) Meanwhile, outside Mom's basement (or with more meds), the rest of us see them trying to detect and stop the next terrorist attack, prefereably before they can use a salvaged anthrax or chemical weapon from Saddam's discards, or maybe even start a nuclear Jihad with a little help, or simply send a suicide bomber to a crowded mall.

Lets reach over into one of the Evolution v. Creation debates and grab Occam's Razor. Which way do you think it cuts here?

I think I understand the impulse behind William F. Buckley's statement that he would rather be governed by the first 2000 names in the Boston phone book than by the Harvard faculty. It seems to require a certain degree of sophistication to engage in certain forms of idiocy.

I suppose by your reasoning we should give up on watching the mafia too, eh? After all, one of the main goals of the Patriot Act was to make investigative techniques already in use against the mafia available to use against terrorists.

How many degrees of separation are you from John Gotti? Or, for that matter, how many from Bin Laden?

And here I was thinking that they were trying to find people planning to plan bombs, poison people, funnel hundreds of thousands of dollars into terrorist organizations, or fly more planes into buildings when I guess we are watching pizza delivery guys, paper boys, and girl scouts selling door to door. Live and learn, I guess. I wonder how much bigger of a promotion an FBI agent gets for following a trail of associations to find a nerd living in mom's basement surfing porn instead of finding a ring of 19 people funneling funds to terrorist organizations? Based on the noise levels it must be substantial.

Wow! I bet they have a lot of terrorists to show for all that work. Right...?

You mean like these recent convictions, arrests, or indictments? Hamid Hayat, Abu Ali, and Sayed Ahmed, Shahawar Matin Siraj, Ehsanul Islam Sadequee, and these 19?

Maybe your memory is fading, or you don't pay attention, but there have been plenty of others over the last few years.

here. This was the guy's third conviction and second supervised release violation in 6 years. Also, the 2005 conviction (and 20 year sentence) included 14 images of real (not cartoon) child porn. Saying this guy got 20 years for cartoon child porn is wildly inaccurate.

Willie Sutton:
When asked why he robbed banks, Sutton simply replied, "Because that's where the money is."
http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/famcases/sutton /sutton.htm

Logical Fallacy # 1: Poisoning the Well

linky:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning -the-well.html

Logical Fallacy # 2: Guilt By Association

linky:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by- association.html

Both are particularly amusing due to your choice of link to "prove" your point.

...

Make the requirements to vote the same as to own a gun.

Simply go to the polling place, fill out a Form 4473, show your ID, and the poll worker will check with the FBI database to make sure that you're not prohibited from voting. If everything is working correctly, you will be allowed to vote in a few minutes.

If the GCA/Brady system doesn't violate the rights of gun owners, then what possible objection could there be to implementing the same system for voting?

Robert Racansky

I seriously doubt it. While I wouldn't say impossible, I would say it's highly highly unlikely. Besides, wouldn't you want this reward? I don't know about you, but I could use the 25 mil bounty! Fat chance though. I'd get waxed by his loyal followers before I even got within visual range.

You are not going to "do" something about the current administration, so get over it. If Democrats come up with some ideas about running the country and present them to the people before the next ELECTION, then Democrats might actually get elected.

Note: "Bush is a Moron" is not a platform idea the Democrats can run on, because BUSH IS NOT A CANDITATE IN THE NEXT ELECTION.

While on some level it is amusing to see people in the thrall of Bush Derangement Syndrome, the country needs the Democrats to get a grip, get a message, and Move On, so that the voters have two viable parties to choose from.

The rest of your rant about /. being like Free Republic is to risible to deserve a response.

Furthermore, if we follow the suggestion in the supersig below, we can eliminate one of the components of voting fraud, and get an honest election result. ...

Make the requirements to vote the same as to own a gun.

Simply go to the polling place, fill out a Form 4473, show your ID, and the poll worker will check with the FBI database to make sure that you're not prohibited from voting. If everything is working correctly, you will be allowed to vote in a few minutes.

If the GCA/Brady system doesn't violate the rights of gun owners, then what possible objection could there be to implementing the same system for voting?

Robert Racansky

Trying to create a trend or perception where there is none. Witness all those smarmy "the suit is back" articles.

In addition to accepting paid and free propaganda, trying to create public hysteria to influence political outcomes, the MSM survives on renting reader's eyeballs to advertisers. Whatever it takes to do that, they will do. Slashdot itself has fallen into that same cycle, with regular articles about "political" subjects sure to get 800 replies (and corresponding ad impressions) but with no valid technical content.

New SuperSig:

....


Make the requirements to vote the same as to own a gun.

Simply go to the polling place, fill out a Form 4473, show your ID, and the poll worker will check with the FBI database to make sure that you're not prohibited from voting. If everything is working correctly, you will be allowed to vote in a few minutes.

If the GCA/Brady system doesn't violate the rights of gun owners, then what possible objection could there be to implementing the same system for voting?

Robert Racansky

I get this page when I click the link: http://www.fbi.gov/?2006/03/29/google-page-creator -review/ [fbi.gov] Is this supposed to be funny, has /. been hacked, or am I infected? I'm on a University of Idaho computer...

I clicked on the link and ended up here:

http://www.fbi.gov/?2006/03/29/google-page-creator -review/

BTW, there's no review there.

At first I thought I was missing the joke, then I went back and checked the URL's. Either they've been hacked, or they thought they'd be funny and redirect to http://www.fbi.gov/?2006/03/29/google-page-creator -review/. Either that or I've been hacked.

I get this page when I click the link:

http://www.fbi.gov/?2006/03/29/google-page-creator -review/

Is this supposed to be funny, has /. been hacked, or am I infected? I'm on a University of Idaho computer...

When I follow the link I end up at the FBI website. The url in my browser gets rewritten to
http://www.fbi.gov/?2006/03/29/google-page-creator -review/
WTF?
Anyone else get this? I'm in the UK btw.

My browser reads the link correctly, but every time I click on it I get redirected to http://www.fbi.gov/