It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The FBI ran a child porn site to catch predators, and now the accused are crying foul.

page: 3
26
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Let them cry all they want, and take away the tissues!




posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 02:24 PM
link   
How naive can these people get? Only the elites get away with pedophilia.



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: jappee
i am no legal expert but is this not a blatant example of entrapment?



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 04:39 PM
link   

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?


If you call getting placed on the sex offenders register for 5 years, restrictions placed on his movements, unable to enter certain countries, USA being one of them, having to report to police stations when he travels is getting away with it then i suppose he did.



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.
Abusewatch.net
edit on 23-1-2017 by Soloprotocol because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 05:40 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: jappee

In a metaphor. A murderer on the way to the guillotine wants to condemn his executioner because they are also a murderer.

This does have a moral implication. If everyone is equal before the law and justice is blind. The FBI agents running the website should be indicted as well.

I see it as a man driving a car through a group of soldiers with guns who were shooting a group of civilians.
Sure the driver did a good thing but he still committed vehicular manslaughter.



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Heruactic

I like your metaphor as a logical thought experiment.

There is no equivalency here. You cannot victimize chidlren in the name of fighting the victimization of children. You cannot say, "Well, we didn't create the child porn, we only disseminated it" and feel that you are justified. Well, you can....but its still wrong.

At what point did the abyss start to stare back?



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 07:34 PM
link   

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?


Here is one problem with US child porn laws.

Its not illegal to view child porn on the internet.

It is very illegal to download any child porn from the internet.

This is why it does not work for the FBI just to watch sites that host child porn.

Also there are 51 different groups of child porn laws on the books and some states have laws as to what child porn is that are really dumb.
In some states those cute naked baby pictures have landed a surprising number of parents in legal "hot water" -
blogs.findlaw.com...
I am a life long nudist and have some of those cute naked baby pictures of myself that could be classed as child porn in some states.



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: everyone

Ohh you mean like the DEA? This not a new tactic, having said that. It is deeply disturbing.



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 07:51 PM
link   

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).



This is not entrapment. The FBI didn't force the perps to seek kiddy porn and likely didn't solicit them; they just made it available and waited. The FBI lawyers know what entrapment is and the sting has to be clean.
I think that while the watchers provide the market, the people who should suffer are those who make the films. Their lives should be as full of pain and fear as the children whose lives they destroyed.



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 07:54 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 10:11 PM
link   

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.
What about damaging children to do it, you're ok with that? Because that's what they are doing. From the OP article:

The FBI ran a child porn site

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 how much damage to children did they do?


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 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?

How many were arrested?

During the operation, numerous users were identified, leading to child pornography charges against about 180 people nationwide
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?

Think of the children!



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 12:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: jappee
The FBI ran a child porn site

Then they should go to prison as well as those 'snagged'!!!
Good for the goose...



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 12:25 AM
link   
While I'm glad that any would be caught and punished for engaging in such activity that would include the FBI...
Because while their success at catching people with deep involvement Im sure they were equally successful at introducing many new people to this despicable content...
And this to me is even more troubling then the fact they used entrapment to catch them...
In other words they're equally as guilty of breaking the law themselves and should be held accountable by the same laws they are supposedly enforcing...
edit on 24-1-2017 by 5StarOracle because: Word



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 01:50 AM
link   
a reply to: LanceCorvette

My problem with this stems from the fact that if they caught these criminals through more "legal" methods then the lawyers would have no way to get the perpetrators off of the charges. A rock solid prosecution depends upon how you gain the evidence. In this case their method is not only possibly allowing perps to get off on a technicality, it also helped distribute child porn. Classless.



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 03:36 AM
link   
a reply to: crayzeed

It is not justified.

Its also worth noting that the two situations are different, since that individual was not caught in this specific sting, or indeed entrapped into acquiring the content involved. No matter how come by, the possession of such material ought to be grounds to go directly to jail for a very long time.



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 04:13 AM
link   
I'm all for catching filthy pedos and kiddy fiddlers but the way the FBI went about it, by exploiting those children even further, was NOT OK.

This is even worse than Operation Fast and Furious where they practically gave the guns to the crims and people died.



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 04:38 AM
link   

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.


I too have nothing but hatred for paedophiles. However I also can see through the curtain of disgust [against paedos] when something doesn't seem quite right.
Your attitude is exactly what the FBI needs to continue with whatever they are doing. It helps so much in covering up dodgy dealings because as soon as anyone dares to question their incentives, out come the: "Whatever they do, I am on their side, if it just catches one paedo..."

Just to make it clear. I love those vigilantes who pretend to be an underaged child, ask to meet up and then reveal themselves and hand the perps over to the police. That is textbook paedo hunting. No child is getting hurt and the perp is caught red handed.

Now, excuse me if I doubt the goodwill of the FBI. I didn't know they were so lovely that they do something without any gain. After all, they are your protectors and would never do anything bad would they? No drug smuggling or distribution...oh no.

See, there is shed loads of money in child porn. There are also other ways of catching a paedo than using actual sites, with actual victims. I'll be blunt here. I think they are making money from child porn and when caught, they say that it is all in order to catch paedos.

Because they can, because people are naive and believe them because...paedos.

What I would love to know are statistics on this. How many paedos have they actually caught through their dodgy scheme, how many were prosecuted?
And as a comparison, how many paedos were caught by civilian groups who are doing this because they actually, really care and have done so without any further harm to children?

I am sorry, paedos deserve to have their dicks burned like a wick but to trust the most untrustworthy FBI and believe they do this for love and peace is beyond naive and only helps them to continue with their shady businesses.



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Hecate666

I think you will be pleased to know you may have misunderstood that post. My first post was a little less dramatic, but my position is that the F.B.I. is every bit as criminal in their approach as the people downloading the material. I don't normally try and vanquish people to burn in hell, so in that case Hell could be replaced with Prison cell.

In other words I am 100% against the F.B.I. maintaining and distributing CP in order to catch criminals. I would argue they are at least as guilty of the crime as the downloaders and maybe even more so because damnit they should at least know better. When you work for a Federal agency you cannot be a criminal in order to catch a criminal in this case.

At the absolute very least anyone and everyone involved with facilitating and signing off on this program should be fired and publicly shamed, but I would much prefer to see them arrested and charged. It would make me very happy to see any of the children who photos or videos were shared by the F.B.I. sue the pants off of them as well.

Outrageous and unacceptable is really all I can say about it.



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 11:08 PM
link   

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



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
26
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join