It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: TrueBritAs a Brit with what you say, how can it be justified when a well known British musical legend gets caught with many images on his computer but gets away with it by saying he was researching for a book and because he was abused as a child?
He avoided charges beyond a caution as the police did not detect any images of child rape on his 14 computers. Townshend was never cleared of his offence and remained on the Sex Offender registry for the full five years 2003 – 2008. Townshend had to give a DNA sample, check in with the British police regularly and inform them of his movements during his Sex Offender registration.
originally posted by: DAVID64
So....the FBI is telling me that, with the most sophisticated surveillance network on the planet, they can't just trace the scum who visit these sites? Hmm. Something stinks.
Maybe ask the NSA for help?
originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: jappee
This is an FBI tactic - entrapment. They have also been implicated in the past in setting up terrorist stings to catch 'terrorists' in the act.
This is a very effective way of operating the Bureau because it ensures an ongoing and rather healthy budget because they get results (because they create the situation that gives them the results).
What about damaging children to do it, you're ok with that? Because that's what they are doing. From the OP article:
originally posted by: seagull
Entrapment. Legally, it's a dirty word.
In this instance, I have a really hard time, impossible actually, feeling any sorrow for the "victims" of this particular entrapment.
I suppose my attitude should be any entrapment is bad, illegal, whatever... But nope. Not the case, at all. I hope the perverted bastards get hung.
So how much damage to children did they do?
Douglas Anderson, chair of the University of North Texas' philosophy and religion department, said the government was conducting a cost-benefit analysis, weighing damage to children against catching people who download child porn.
World opinion says we have a basic duty to protect children, Anderson said.
So 100,000 people accessed the FBI-run site and people are claiming that distributing these images damages these children, does it or doesn't it?
Steven Jumes, Pawlak's attorney, wrote in a Dec. 28 motion to dismiss the indictment that the FBI hosted an estimated 22,000 images, videos and links of child pornography that more than 100,000 people accessed.
So now there's 99,820 people out there who accessed the FBI's site and didn't get arrested, aren't the children being victimized by not only those 99,000 people but also the FBI who spread that filth to so many people?
During the operation, numerous users were identified, leading to child pornography charges against about 180 people nationwide
originally posted by: sputniksteve
a reply to: proteus33
I am not certain, others are arguing it is not. My argument personally is let all of the pedophiles who downloaded burn in hell, but god damnit everyone involved in maintaining and distributing the material should be right with them regardless of their employment with the Federal Bureau of Investigations.
This is outrageous and unacceptable, and in my humble opinion anyone that disagrees is suspicious of sympathizing.
originally posted by: BloodStainedGlass
a reply to: everyone
No, I get it.
I think the ends justify the means in this situation, this is one of those rare cases of ignore the laws for the right reasons.
Most times laws are ignored for all the wrong reasons, but if you can tell me that if your child was the target of minor trafficking that you would still have an issue with HOW the offenders were brought to justice then I would think you were being dishonest. It has been said this is a very elusive and subversive bunch; any means necessary is justified.
My opinion of course, you don't have to agree.edit on 23-1-2017 by BloodStainedGlass because: Grammatical error
Thats the thing. You cannot justify a crime since it is all by itself unjust. By breaking the law themselves the FBI has had to let a lot if not most of these people go in cases such as these. This is certainly not the first time so i definitely do care about how these people are brought to justice. Also do not forget that by using shady ways to catch people you also risk innocent people being caught in the net. These websites are open to the entire web anyone can actually stumble into it while searching for legal erotic whatever. In many cases people have been let go because of this and it is not to much of a stretch to think of the ones who abused this to get from under the charges even though they were guilty.
^ Its a clusterF already
But lets again look at this
but if you can tell me that if your child was the target of minor trafficking that you would still have an issue with HOW the offenders were brought to justice then I would think you were being dishonest.
I think i am actually being more honest by doing so. in part because of what i just said but also towards many victims in these very cases. If your child had been a victim of this would you not take issue with the fact that they are using your child's photo's and video's on their websites in order to fish for more culprits ? (that they often have to let go) and then not to mention the consequence we are seeing right now. That they become the biggest supplier of the very thing they are (pretending) to stop.
It is ludacris and wrong on so many levels. extra DIV