Even in the "non-secret" courts, many people are being convicted on secret evidence.
Specifically, a huge number of people are being convicted of possession of child pornography, yet no one except the police and prosecutors are allowed to see the evidence.
I have heard from numerous sources that many convictions have the number of images exaggerated - for instance, 40 images became over 600 images - and even the defense attorneys won't question this lest they be seen as being "soft" on possession of pictures. The quality of the images also appear to be exaggerated - in rare cases where some of the evidence has come to light, it has turned out that some images deemed worthy of conviction included pictures of fully dressed teenaged cheerleaders giving a public performance, cartoons of a girl whose loose swimsuit revealed a nipple, and so forth.
More commonly, the images that secure a conviction are ostensibly legal images of child models or simple nudes. In a current series of cases men in the U.S. are being convicted of possession of nudist videos which a U.S. Federal Court has previously found to be perfectly legal. (The AZOV cases.)
There apparently is now also a large sub-category of actual child pornography (I am told it is about two fifths) that consists of children, on webcams or otherwise, producing pictures of themselves - mostly nude or masturbating. Despite the fact that we know that these are the sorts of images often earning convictions, prosecutors and law enforcement routinely describe all of these images as "child abuse imagery" and "images of sadistic rape". Of course, no one who is not a prosecutor or in law enforcement is allowed to see this evidence to judge for themselves, so of course we must simply take the word of these proven liars on faith. Yes, they lied about all those other cases involving so-called "child pornography" - but honest, they aren't lying this time.
I recently came across a comment from a prisoner (who committed real crimes) concerned about the safety of his children when they visit him in prison, because forty percent of his fellow inmates are "pedophiles" - which most likely means they were convicted for possession of pictures, regardless of their actual sexual orientation or deeds. The percentage of prisoners being held for possession of pictures, based on secret evidence, is apparently a large and growing portion of the prison population. It seems that this sort of conviction is intended to replace the convictions for drug crimes that are beginning to dwindle as the public is becoming aware of damage done by the War on Drugs. Naturally the law enforcement community prefers this type of prisoner as they are less dangerous to warehouse than other populations, being generally peaceful and non-violent - and when the public becomes wise to this they will begin warehousing undocumented immigrants. Whatever is required to allow private prisons and public prison guard unions to profit.
All this can be done because the evidence is kept secret from the public - with anyone who sees the evidence in danger of being sent to prison themselves, and then be put on a public registry for life and prevented from getting most jobs and even from living in many areas.
All of this in spite of the fact that there is no evidence that consensual sex between adults and children is harmful to children. (See Rind et al (1998) - the only scientific study ever condemned by Congress.) Of course, societal reaction to adult-child sex, which often includes forcing children to testify against the people they love most in the world, often has dire consequences. Some children have even committed suicide after being forced to testify against their lover.
Clearly secret evidence is something that can not be tolerated any more than secret courts.
Of course, the "child pornography" they were involved in featured them fully clothed, but the photographer is still in jail for it.
But it brings up several questions: What is child pornography? What are the dangers of not allowing the public to see the evidence? How do the models in real child pornography feel about it?
These ladies can stand up to social pressure because what they were modeling for was obviously not pornography, despite the convictions - but we rarely hear from other models unless they are found as children and their answers can be scripted for them. When they don't agree with the narrative of abuse, they are routinely silenced.
It remains virtually impossible for adult males to befriend children. (Friendships between adults and children used to be pretty common, even in the USA.)
As one example:
Neil Wilkes was a teacher in Manchester, England who had a close relationship with an eight year old girl he taught. He got on well with her and with her family.
But someone decided it was "inappropriate" for a man to befriend a girl, and launched a formal investigation into the relationship.
There was no evidence that Neil Wilkes had done anything wrong.
All the same, Neil lost his job and the girl's family was frightened into breaking off all contact.
On October 20th 2010, Neil Wilkes went to a quiet tourist spot, sent a text message to the girl telling her "I love you and I always will", doused himself with fuel, and set himself on fire.
It is clear to me that the obsession with child pornography and child abuse is intended to break down the trust between generations, provide an excuse for controlling and monitoring all expression, and firmly cement the power of the ruling class. This panic also provides employment opportunities for a predatory class of therapists and an entire child abuse industry.
Thanks to the manipulation of the public consciousness and abusing the public's natural concern for the well-being of children, the prohibition of child pornography has provided a means for the ruling class to do whatever it wants. Want to eliminate a rival? Just claim they had child pornography on their computer. No one will investigate it, because investigating it would constitute a crime - so everyone must take their public servant overlords' word at face value - and the public accepts this without question.
We don't even have proof of what typical child pornography looks like. The claim is that it is all horrific images of rape and abuse, but ordinary citizens - even reporters - are not allowed to see for themselves. It seems more likely that it is mostly pictures of happy children wearing little or no clothing, because most guys don't get turned on by pictures of real abuse - but how could we find out? The public goes along with the farce, because they have been conditioned to hate pedophiles so much that they don't care whether their victims are even pedophiles, much less whether pedophiles or child pornographers are actually doing harm.
However, we do occasionally get a window into child pornography convictions. Here are a few young ladies speaking out against the conviction of the man who took their photographs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2xfzmcOPg0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3ogJhlOw9U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqKEybfBPAs
This case is illustrative of two points: First, that many of the models do not feel harmed, and secondly that much "child pornography" consists of pictures of clothed children. It certainly gives the lie to the traditional narrative.
Everyone assumes that child pornography, especially the "worst of the worst", consists of pictures of children being forced into sex. We are seldom allowed to see the evidence for ourselves, because of course it is strictly illegal for a member of the public to see it.
However, occasionally failed prosecutions for possession of Jock Sturgis or David Hamilton photos, or best-selling sex education books, gives us an insight into what prosecutors think child pornography is, and when one realizes that even photos of fully clothed children have been successfully prosecuted as child pornography, one has to consider that maybe there are ulterior motives to the campaign against child pornography, and maybe the authorities are lying to us.
Recently, some of the Webe Web child models - now adults - have begun a campaign to tell the truth about their participation in what has been successfully prosecuted as "child pornography". As they tell it, the only time they felt like victims was when the FBI came calling.
Of course, we'll never be able to see it to judge for ourselves. We'll just have to take your word for it, and the word of everyone else who profits from the system.
There was a wikileaks document that was released last year. One site in Eastern Europe got hits from something like 15 million unique IP addresses. Now, that included other places than the U.S. - mostly the U.S. and Europe, probably, but that was just ONE site.
Actual numbers are probably in the tens of millions.
Actual crimes against children have fallen dramatically in the same period that child pornography has flourished.
Really. The FBI has had the responsibility for counter-intelligence work for a long time. The CiA (CENTRAL Intelligence Agency) only does foreign stuff - counter-intelligence is domestic.
At 30 frames per second, 1 million images is about 10 hours of video.
Don't believe the hype.
Come to think of it, I don't believe your hype - especially after reading about cops eating donuts and joking about the child pornography they were viewing as part of their "job".
"If the CIA wants to run a cyber-war, let it. I'd rather my federal police do what it was created to do: Lock up criminals."
Actually, the CIA is only allowed to address foreign threats. The FBI has long been responsible for counterintelligence within the US, and has taken the lead on domestic operations.
In the case of cyberwar, it becomes difficult to determine which responsibility belongs to whom, but securing domestic infrastructure would appear to be the FBI's bailiwick.
In any case, it would seem that securing domestic infrastructure should be a higher priority than prosecuting a victimless crime.
"Possession of nude photos of kids or teens is not a crime"
You don't understand how it works in reality.
Possession of nude photos of kids or teens is not a crime for teleiophiles.
Possession of photos of kids - whether nude or clothed - is considered a crime if the possessor is considered by law enforcement to be attracted to children. I am familiar with too many cases to believe otherwise, including men who were convicted of possessing photos in which the children were wearing clothing, and men who were convicted for possession of photos of adults who looked young for their age. If you look into the facts, some of these cases will not be difficult to find.
Apparently it is the magic pedo eye which makes the difference, and causes the harm to children when the photographs are viewed.
In one case, a man in Florida got a sentence of over 100 years in prison for possessing a photo of a boy's 14 year old butt that he didn't even know he had, because his 14 year old friend had thought it would be funny to moon his camera and leave it to be discovered as a joke - not knowing that the police - upset by this man's publicly held beliefs - would raid his house. He is still in jail, and served over 6 years in solitary confinement. What were this man's publicly held beliefs? That being attracted to children was not a crime, of course. As a pedophile, the law is different for him. In fact, the law is whatever it has to be to assure that child lovers are punished severely.
But don't worry - simple nudes are legal for you possess, as long as the police never come to believe that you might be attracted to kids.
I can assure you that most pedophiles sympathize with you. Pedophilia is a sexual orientation, not a crime - and like most people, most pedophiles sympathize with the victims of crime.
There have been a number of studies that have shown that the majority of child pornography that is traded is not imagery of children being abused by any reasonable definition. Most are simple nudes, with a minority that are sex acts among children, or sex acts with a child and an adult that the child does not appear to object to. There is an even smaller minority that might be unquestionably considered images of abuse, but just as the famous image of a Vietnamese girl burned by napalm was not a turn-on for most viewers, images of actual abuse is not a turn-on for most pedophiles. If there were any recordings made of your abuse, and if they were ever released on the net, you can be assured that most of the reactions they would garner would be thoughts of sympathy.
There are a number of problems with the present witch hunt. Children have been excluded from society and forced into roles they do not want, and pedophiles have been deliberately confused with child molesters; while the child abuse industry - therapists, politicians, and law enforcement - makes good money from feeding the frenzy. Children and the pedophiles who love them are both victims of this state of affairs, as is society as whole. We have established a sort of intergenerational apartheid in the English-speaking world, and ask the natives in South Africa how well apartheid protected them.
Seriously - this is standard dogma among therapists and progressive feminists. They seriously claim that looking at a photo is equivalent to doing what is in that photo - so you remember that photo of a little Vietnamese girl that was burned with napalm? Everyone who saw that picture - regardless of whether they were moved to sympathy with her by seeing it - is guilty of spraying napalm on a little girl - and probably guilty of a sex crime as well, seeing as the famous photograph showed her naked.
If you accidentally stumble across child pornography, do not report it to the authorities. You can be and likely will be prosecuted if you do so.
Possession is considered a serious crime, and criminal intent is not considered relevant.
If you stumble across child pornography, immediately clear out your browser history, do whatever you can to clean up your hard drive - and hope to ghod that the site wasn't an FBI honey pot that just got your IP address.
Therapists are a religion of their own, and their beliefs are just as nutty as those of any other religion - and nuttier than most. Their regime is one of torture and intimidation, and anyone who questions their findings they treat as a damned heretic.
If you really want to look at exploitation, follow the money. The big bucks are made by the child abuse industry - the psychologists, psychiatrists, therapists, politicians and cops that prey on the public's concern for children by pretending to protect or help children - for considerable financial gain.
Consider this recent case in which a 12 year old girl flew from New Mexico to Idaho to be with an 18 year old she liked. The girl's mother complained, and the police in Idaho interfered in the girl's affairs.
"The Nampa Police Department developed the Child Abduction Response Team (CART) plan a few months ago for cases like this, said Chief Bill Augsburger."
Apparently when they called it a Child Abduction Response Team they weren't kidding, because their Response was to Abduct a Child from the locale which she had freely chosen.
There are a multitude of examples where children's rights were not merely not honored but utterly ignored - but we seldom hear of the girls and boys who are driven to guilt and even to suicide at the thought that their older friend is in prison because of them, nor do we hear of the forced examinations to find out whether a child had consensual sex with an adult: essentially, our law enforcement agencies routinely rape children to determine whether there has been a crime.
So I have to ask, who is really exploiting children here? Who is really treating children like chattel? Who is really acting without regard to the harm they do to children?
'Cause it ain't the guys downloading pictures of children enjoying themselves.
Somebody is making all those photos... and lately it's been the kids themselves, if you're familiar with "sexting".
Besides this, there are many places in the world where nudity is not a big issue. Do children in these countries suffer from the knowledge that people might have seen pictures of them naked?
Perhaps the problem is not with pedophiles, but with a society that attempts to control both children and sexuality, and which denies child sexuality. Does the harm really come from sex, or from an absurdly out-of-control response to child sexuality?
In any case, the idea that looking at a photo is equal to a crime shown in the photo is reminiscent of the religious belief of some Native Americans that photography steals people's souls. Are we sure we want to have laws based on that?
The only good news for national security is that in the event of a cyberwar, the U.S. can call on legions of technically sophisticated pedophiles to come to their aid - if they haven't pissed them off so much that they all decide to help America's enemies instead.
Maybe the FBI or the CIA needs to hire Jon Schillaci. He has experience keeping computer systems running under tremendous difficulties, and on a shoestring budget. And they know where he is.
The Constitution explicitly outlaws Ex Post Facto laws - and does so twice, to be sure.
However, the U.S. government has a way around Constitutional limitations it does not like. It simply ignores them. They all pretend that the limitation is not there, and just do what they want.
In recent years the usual "justification" for usurpation of power are the twin "threats" of terrorism and pedophilia. The "terrorists" are generally people who are upset because the United States government - or the thugs it supports - have been killing their friends and family; and scapegoating pedophiles is a no-brainer - they're generally too gentle and peace-loving to fight back much.
The U.S. has now allowed pedophiles to be held indefinitely after they have served their full sentence for any crime they may have been convicted of, and even though the change allowing indefinite detention was made after their conviction. This is clearly an ex post facto law, as well as violating due process, but the Supreme Court has officially declared it's OK - so who cares what the supreme law of the land actually says?
The U.S. has also sent agents to a foreign country (the Netherlands) to kidnap a foreign national for "crimes" committed in a foreign jurisdiction. IIRC, this happened in the 1980s, and was also connected to pedophilia. In the late 1980s the U.S. government also invaded Panama in order to enforce U.S. laws there, despite not having any legal jurisdiction, more recently the U.S. government has exercised jurisdiction on British businessmen who operated gambling websites based in central America (IIRC), and the U.S. and Britain have both declared worldwide jurisdiction on pedophiles.
So, the U.S. government has already declared the Constitution null and void, in everything but name. The U.S. government has already established the principle of allowing ex post facto laws, and the U.S. government has already established precedents to claim worldwide jurisdiction on several types of laws - and it has used the two non-threats of terrorism and pedophilia to justify them all. And, of course, the United States government is waging war on Love itself. I leave it to the reader to determine who is actually threatening the peace of the world.
First, pedophilia means an attraction to children. It has nothing to do with rape or molestation - and in fact, most cases of child rape are committed by persons who are not pedophiles. This is not only my opinion, but the opinion of many researchers and the FBI. Equating pedophiles and child molesters is like referring to all heterosexual men as rapists.
Even in the rare cases where actual pedophiles have had sexual contact with children, most bona fide researchers and law enforcement have observed that pedophiles almost never use violence. In contrast, research has found that those who are sexually violent against children are almost never attracted to the children - that is, they are not pedophiles.
Second, pedophilia is not a fetish. Pedophilia is a sexual orientation. It is, as you say, not justifiable - just as being an American, or a European, or an African is not justifiable. These things just are.
Third, what makes people angry at pedophiles is a combination of ignorance, fear of the unknown, yellow journalism, xenophobia, and grandstanding politicians. The "pedophiles" that the public is angry at are not even pedophiles - two diametrically opposed groups have somehow been merged into one in the public mind - but it is very difficult to get the truth out.
The question is, once the truth comes out and the public realizes that there was never any serious threat from pedophiles, or terrorists, or illegal aliens, or whatever other bogeyman the politicians come up with to justify the loss of freedom - will it be too late?
... and if you had visited that link, you would have discovered that most child molesters are not pedophiles - that is, they are not attracted to children. Most child molesters are men who are attracted to women but have an opportunity - often coupled with impairment (drugs, alcohol, mentally ill) that lets them molest or rape a child.
Psychologically healthy people - whether attracted to men, women, boys, or girls - do not rape other people.
But hey... ultimately it's your freedom that your choice to be ignorant will cost you.
Once again a western government uses the drummed-up fear of pedophiles as a stalking horse to eradicate human liberty. The damnedest thing is that pedophiles are about as peaceful a group of people as can be found - but I suppose that is why the government has chosen this target. It's harder to crack down on minorities who are inclined and strong enough to strike back.
It's easier to hire the angry people to put down the peaceful people than the other way around, and get the angry people to accept the loss of freedom as "necessary" to the struggle.
Slashdot Mirror
The U.S. is harder on pedophiles than Russia is on gays, even with the new stupid laws.
Plus, Russia isn't doing anything to persecute gays in every other country in the world.
So, I'm still favoring Russia as being better on human rights.
Even in the "non-secret" courts, many people are being convicted on secret evidence.
Specifically, a huge number of people are being convicted of possession of child pornography, yet no one except the police and prosecutors are allowed to see the evidence.
I have heard from numerous sources that many convictions have the number of images exaggerated - for instance, 40 images became over 600 images - and even the defense attorneys won't question this lest they be seen as being "soft" on possession of pictures. The quality of the images also appear to be exaggerated - in rare cases where some of the evidence has come to light, it has turned out that some images deemed worthy of conviction included pictures of fully dressed teenaged cheerleaders giving a public performance, cartoons of a girl whose loose swimsuit revealed a nipple, and so forth.
More commonly, the images that secure a conviction are ostensibly legal images of child models or simple nudes. In a current series of cases men in the U.S. are being convicted of possession of nudist videos which a U.S. Federal Court has previously found to be perfectly legal. (The AZOV cases.)
There apparently is now also a large sub-category of actual child pornography (I am told it is about two fifths) that consists of children, on webcams or otherwise, producing pictures of themselves - mostly nude or masturbating. Despite the fact that we know that these are the sorts of images often earning convictions, prosecutors and law enforcement routinely describe all of these images as "child abuse imagery" and "images of sadistic rape". Of course, no one who is not a prosecutor or in law enforcement is allowed to see this evidence to judge for themselves, so of course we must simply take the word of these proven liars on faith. Yes, they lied about all those other cases involving so-called "child pornography" - but honest, they aren't lying this time.
I recently came across a comment from a prisoner (who committed real crimes) concerned about the safety of his children when they visit him in prison, because forty percent of his fellow inmates are "pedophiles" - which most likely means they were convicted for possession of pictures, regardless of their actual sexual orientation or deeds. The percentage of prisoners being held for possession of pictures, based on secret evidence, is apparently a large and growing portion of the prison population. It seems that this sort of conviction is intended to replace the convictions for drug crimes that are beginning to dwindle as the public is becoming aware of damage done by the War on Drugs. Naturally the law enforcement community prefers this type of prisoner as they are less dangerous to warehouse than other populations, being generally peaceful and non-violent - and when the public becomes wise to this they will begin warehousing undocumented immigrants. Whatever is required to allow private prisons and public prison guard unions to profit.
All this can be done because the evidence is kept secret from the public - with anyone who sees the evidence in danger of being sent to prison themselves, and then be put on a public registry for life and prevented from getting most jobs and even from living in many areas.
All of this in spite of the fact that there is no evidence that consensual sex between adults and children is harmful to children. (See Rind et al (1998) - the only scientific study ever condemned by Congress.) Of course, societal reaction to adult-child sex, which often includes forcing children to testify against the people they love most in the world, often has dire consequences. Some children have even committed suicide after being forced to testify against their lover.
Clearly secret evidence is something that can not be tolerated any more than secret courts.
No, PJ has been doing so with the complicity of some police departments. That is not the same thing as doing it legally.
''whether that's 5-year-old girls or "jailbait."''
5 year old girls aren't jailbait?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2xfzmcOPg0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3ogJhlOw9U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqKEybfBPAs
Of course, the "child pornography" they were involved in featured them fully clothed, but the photographer is still in jail for it.
But it brings up several questions: What is child pornography? What are the dangers of not allowing the public to see the evidence? How do the models in real child pornography feel about it?
These ladies can stand up to social pressure because what they were modeling for was obviously not pornography, despite the convictions - but we rarely hear from other models unless they are found as children and their answers can be scripted for them. When they don't agree with the narrative of abuse, they are routinely silenced.
Why won't anyone listen to the children?
It remains virtually impossible for adult males to befriend children. (Friendships between adults and children used to be pretty common, even in the USA.)
As one example:
Neil Wilkes was a teacher in Manchester, England who had a close relationship with an eight year old girl he taught. He got on well with her and with her family.
But someone decided it was "inappropriate" for a man to befriend a girl, and launched a formal investigation into the relationship.
There was no evidence that Neil Wilkes had done anything wrong.
All the same, Neil lost his job and the girl's family was frightened into breaking off all contact.
On October 20th 2010, Neil Wilkes went to a quiet tourist spot, sent a text message to the girl telling her "I love you and I always will", doused himself with fuel, and set himself on fire.
http://www.thejournal.ie/teacher-sets-himself-alight-after-texting-i-love-you-to-girl-8-2011-03/
It is clear to me that the obsession with child pornography and child abuse is intended to break down the trust between generations, provide an excuse for controlling and monitoring all expression, and firmly cement the power of the ruling class. This panic also provides employment opportunities for a predatory class of therapists and an entire child abuse industry.
Thanks to the manipulation of the public consciousness and abusing the public's natural concern for the well-being of children, the prohibition of child pornography has provided a means for the ruling class to do whatever it wants. Want to eliminate a rival? Just claim they had child pornography on their computer. No one will investigate it, because investigating it would constitute a crime - so everyone must take their public servant overlords' word at face value - and the public accepts this without question.
We don't even have proof of what typical child pornography looks like. The claim is that it is all horrific images of rape and abuse, but ordinary citizens - even reporters - are not allowed to see for themselves. It seems more likely that it is mostly pictures of happy children wearing little or no clothing, because most guys don't get turned on by pictures of real abuse - but how could we find out? The public goes along with the farce, because they have been conditioned to hate pedophiles so much that they don't care whether their victims are even pedophiles, much less whether pedophiles or child pornographers are actually doing harm.
However, we do occasionally get a window into child pornography convictions. Here are a few young ladies speaking out against the conviction of the man who took their photographs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2xfzmcOPg0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3ogJhlOw9U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqKEybfBPAs
This case is illustrative of two points: First, that many of the models do not feel harmed, and secondly that much "child pornography" consists of pictures of clothed children. It certainly gives the lie to the traditional narrative.
Everyone assumes that child pornography, especially the "worst of the worst", consists of pictures of children being forced into sex. We are seldom allowed to see the evidence for ourselves, because of course it is strictly illegal for a member of the public to see it.
However, occasionally failed prosecutions for possession of Jock Sturgis or David Hamilton photos, or best-selling sex education books, gives us an insight into what prosecutors think child pornography is, and when one realizes that even photos of fully clothed children have been successfully prosecuted as child pornography, one has to consider that maybe there are ulterior motives to the campaign against child pornography, and maybe the authorities are lying to us.
Recently, some of the Webe Web child models - now adults - have begun a campaign to tell the truth about their participation in what has been successfully prosecuted as "child pornography". As they tell it, the only time they felt like victims was when the FBI came calling.
Here is one of their videos at YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2xfzmcOPg0
"but if someone uses my stolen credit card number to buy some kiddie porn, then they might get caught?"
No, if someone uses your stolen credit card number to buy some kiddie porn, YOU'LL get caught!
Fortunately, there's no actual market for kiddie porn, but unfortunately that doesn't matter.
Of course, we'll never be able to see it to judge for ourselves. We'll just have to take your word for it, and the word of everyone else who profits from the system.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
There was a wikileaks document that was released last year. One site in Eastern Europe got hits from something like 15 million unique IP addresses. Now, that included other places than the U.S. - mostly the U.S. and Europe, probably, but that was just ONE site.
Actual numbers are probably in the tens of millions.
Actual crimes against children have fallen dramatically in the same period that child pornography has flourished.
Really. The FBI has had the responsibility for counter-intelligence work for a long time. The CiA (CENTRAL Intelligence Agency) only does foreign stuff - counter-intelligence is domestic.
At 30 frames per second, 1 million images is about 10 hours of video.
Don't believe the hype.
Come to think of it, I don't believe your hype - especially after reading about cops eating donuts and joking about the child pornography they were viewing as part of their "job".
The Trojan Horse of Child Protection
Um, there's already been some talk of a few pedophiles joining forces with Al Qaeda.
And the current attempts at genocide may yet have some serious backlash.
Are you sure you want to escalate this war with an unseen enemy in your own backyard?
Just saying.
"If the CIA wants to run a cyber-war, let it. I'd rather my federal police do what it was created to do: Lock up criminals."
Actually, the CIA is only allowed to address foreign threats. The FBI has long been responsible for counterintelligence within the US, and has taken the lead on domestic operations.
In the case of cyberwar, it becomes difficult to determine which responsibility belongs to whom, but securing domestic infrastructure would appear to be the FBI's bailiwick.
In any case, it would seem that securing domestic infrastructure should be a higher priority than prosecuting a victimless crime.
"Possession of nude photos of kids or teens is not a crime"
You don't understand how it works in reality.
Possession of nude photos of kids or teens is not a crime for teleiophiles.
Possession of photos of kids - whether nude or clothed - is considered a crime if the possessor is considered by law enforcement to be attracted to children. I am familiar with too many cases to believe otherwise, including men who were convicted of possessing photos in which the children were wearing clothing, and men who were convicted for possession of photos of adults who looked young for their age. If you look into the facts, some of these cases will not be difficult to find.
Apparently it is the magic pedo eye which makes the difference, and causes the harm to children when the photographs are viewed.
In one case, a man in Florida got a sentence of over 100 years in prison for possessing a photo of a boy's 14 year old butt that he didn't even know he had, because his 14 year old friend had thought it would be funny to moon his camera and leave it to be discovered as a joke - not knowing that the police - upset by this man's publicly held beliefs - would raid his house. He is still in jail, and served over 6 years in solitary confinement. What were this man's publicly held beliefs? That being attracted to children was not a crime, of course. As a pedophile, the law is different for him. In fact, the law is whatever it has to be to assure that child lovers are punished severely.
But don't worry - simple nudes are legal for you possess, as long as the police never come to believe that you might be attracted to kids.
Perhaps they should start posting Help Wanted ads in the pedophile forums.
I can assure you that most pedophiles sympathize with you. Pedophilia is a sexual orientation, not a crime - and like most people, most pedophiles sympathize with the victims of crime.
There have been a number of studies that have shown that the majority of child pornography that is traded is not imagery of children being abused by any reasonable definition. Most are simple nudes, with a minority that are sex acts among children, or sex acts with a child and an adult that the child does not appear to object to. There is an even smaller minority that might be unquestionably considered images of abuse, but just as the famous image of a Vietnamese girl burned by napalm was not a turn-on for most viewers, images of actual abuse is not a turn-on for most pedophiles. If there were any recordings made of your abuse, and if they were ever released on the net, you can be assured that most of the reactions they would garner would be thoughts of sympathy.
There are a number of problems with the present witch hunt. Children have been excluded from society and forced into roles they do not want, and pedophiles have been deliberately confused with child molesters; while the child abuse industry - therapists, politicians, and law enforcement - makes good money from feeding the frenzy. Children and the pedophiles who love them are both victims of this state of affairs, as is society as whole. We have established a sort of intergenerational apartheid in the English-speaking world, and ask the natives in South Africa how well apartheid protected them.
Seriously - this is standard dogma among therapists and progressive feminists. They seriously claim that looking at a photo is equivalent to doing what is in that photo - so you remember that photo of a little Vietnamese girl that was burned with napalm? Everyone who saw that picture - regardless of whether they were moved to sympathy with her by seeing it - is guilty of spraying napalm on a little girl - and probably guilty of a sex crime as well, seeing as the famous photograph showed her naked.
If you accidentally stumble across child pornography, do not report it to the authorities. You can be and likely will be prosecuted if you do so.
Possession is considered a serious crime, and criminal intent is not considered relevant.
If you stumble across child pornography, immediately clear out your browser history, do whatever you can to clean up your hard drive - and hope to ghod that the site wasn't an FBI honey pot that just got your IP address.
There is no defense.
Therapists are a religion of their own, and their beliefs are just as nutty as those of any other religion - and nuttier than most. Their regime is one of torture and intimidation, and anyone who questions their findings they treat as a damned heretic.
If you really want to look at exploitation, follow the money. The big bucks are made by the child abuse industry - the psychologists, psychiatrists, therapists, politicians and cops that prey on the public's concern for children by pretending to protect or help children - for considerable financial gain.
Consider this recent case in which a 12 year old girl flew from New Mexico to Idaho to be with an 18 year old she liked. The girl's mother complained, and the police in Idaho interfered in the girl's affairs.
http://www.idahopress.com/news/article_b577b760-7153-11e0-b128-001cc4c03286.html
"The Nampa Police Department developed the Child Abduction Response Team (CART) plan a few months ago for cases like this, said Chief Bill Augsburger."
Apparently when they called it a Child Abduction Response Team they weren't kidding, because their Response was to Abduct a Child from the locale which she had freely chosen.
There are a multitude of examples where children's rights were not merely not honored but utterly ignored - but we seldom hear of the girls and boys who are driven to guilt and even to suicide at the thought that their older friend is in prison because of them, nor do we hear of the forced examinations to find out whether a child had consensual sex with an adult: essentially, our law enforcement agencies routinely rape children to determine whether there has been a crime.
So I have to ask, who is really exploiting children here? Who is really treating children like chattel? Who is really acting without regard to the harm they do to children?
'Cause it ain't the guys downloading pictures of children enjoying themselves.
Somebody is making all those photos ... and lately it's been the kids themselves, if you're familiar with "sexting".
Besides this, there are many places in the world where nudity is not a big issue. Do children in these countries suffer from the knowledge that people might have seen pictures of them naked?
Perhaps the problem is not with pedophiles, but with a society that attempts to control both children and sexuality, and which denies child sexuality. Does the harm really come from sex, or from an absurdly out-of-control response to child sexuality?
In any case, the idea that looking at a photo is equal to a crime shown in the photo is reminiscent of the religious belief of some Native Americans that photography steals people's souls. Are we sure we want to have laws based on that?
The only good news for national security is that in the event of a cyberwar, the U.S. can call on legions of technically sophisticated pedophiles to come to their aid - if they haven't pissed them off so much that they all decide to help America's enemies instead.
Maybe the FBI or the CIA needs to hire Jon Schillaci. He has experience keeping computer systems running under tremendous difficulties, and on a shoestring budget. And they know where he is.
The Constitution explicitly outlaws Ex Post Facto laws - and does so twice, to be sure.
However, the U.S. government has a way around Constitutional limitations it does not like. It simply ignores them. They all pretend that the limitation is not there, and just do what they want.
In recent years the usual "justification" for usurpation of power are the twin "threats" of terrorism and pedophilia. The "terrorists" are generally people who are upset because the United States government - or the thugs it supports - have been killing their friends and family; and scapegoating pedophiles is a no-brainer - they're generally too gentle and peace-loving to fight back much.
The U.S. has now allowed pedophiles to be held indefinitely after they have served their full sentence for any crime they may have been convicted of, and even though the change allowing indefinite detention was made after their conviction. This is clearly an ex post facto law, as well as violating due process, but the Supreme Court has officially declared it's OK - so who cares what the supreme law of the land actually says?
The U.S. has also sent agents to a foreign country (the Netherlands) to kidnap a foreign national for "crimes" committed in a foreign jurisdiction. IIRC, this happened in the 1980s, and was also connected to pedophilia. In the late 1980s the U.S. government also invaded Panama in order to enforce U.S. laws there, despite not having any legal jurisdiction, more recently the U.S. government has exercised jurisdiction on British businessmen who operated gambling websites based in central America (IIRC), and the U.S. and Britain have both declared worldwide jurisdiction on pedophiles.
So, the U.S. government has already declared the Constitution null and void, in everything but name. The U.S. government has already established the principle of allowing ex post facto laws, and the U.S. government has already established precedents to claim worldwide jurisdiction on several types of laws - and it has used the two non-threats of terrorism and pedophilia to justify them all. And, of course, the United States government is waging war on Love itself. I leave it to the reader to determine who is actually threatening the peace of the world.
First, pedophilia means an attraction to children. It has nothing to do with rape or molestation - and in fact, most cases of child rape are committed by persons who are not pedophiles. This is not only my opinion, but the opinion of many researchers and the FBI. Equating pedophiles and child molesters is like referring to all heterosexual men as rapists.
Even in the rare cases where actual pedophiles have had sexual contact with children, most bona fide researchers and law enforcement have observed that pedophiles almost never use violence. In contrast, research has found that those who are sexually violent against children are almost never attracted to the children - that is, they are not pedophiles.
Second, pedophilia is not a fetish. Pedophilia is a sexual orientation. It is, as you say, not justifiable - just as being an American, or a European, or an African is not justifiable. These things just are.
Third, what makes people angry at pedophiles is a combination of ignorance, fear of the unknown, yellow journalism, xenophobia, and grandstanding politicians. The "pedophiles" that the public is angry at are not even pedophiles - two diametrically opposed groups have somehow been merged into one in the public mind - but it is very difficult to get the truth out.
The question is, once the truth comes out and the public realizes that there was never any serious threat from pedophiles, or terrorists, or illegal aliens, or whatever other bogeyman the politicians come up with to justify the loss of freedom - will it be too late?
... and if you had visited that link, you would have discovered that most child molesters are not pedophiles - that is, they are not attracted to children. Most child molesters are men who are attracted to women but have an opportunity - often coupled with impairment (drugs, alcohol, mentally ill) that lets them molest or rape a child.
Psychologically healthy people - whether attracted to men, women, boys, or girls - do not rape other people.
But hey ... ultimately it's your freedom that your choice to be ignorant will cost you.
Once again a western government uses the drummed-up fear of pedophiles as a stalking horse to eradicate human liberty. The damnedest thing is that pedophiles are about as peaceful a group of people as can be found - but I suppose that is why the government has chosen this target. It's harder to crack down on minorities who are inclined and strong enough to strike back.
It's easier to hire the angry people to put down the peaceful people than the other way around, and get the angry people to accept the loss of freedom as "necessary" to the struggle.
A few facts about the bête noire du jour. Remember, the loss of your freedom depends on the people never learning the truth ... at least, until it is too late.