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.

 

E-Mails Force Rep. Mark Foley R-Fla. to Resign

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 06:10 PM
link   
With all that's been said, I think an important point has been avoided.

How hard is it to fake a thing like this?

Not hard...

With the advent of digital photography/video and, especially, electronic communications - we entered a golden age of fraud and blackmail. Even if you've done nothing wrong, piss off the wrong people and you could easily find yourself implicated in some horrendous crime. It's two for one if the blackmailers committed the crime, or their buddies did, it's back to the logic of net gain. They get off the hook and cause problems for their opponents at the same time - win/win.

Crimes involving children, throughout history, have proven to be the best at overcoming reason and inciting a lynch mob mentality. Just the other day a guy got beaten to death in his home because some girl claimed he molested her. He didn't.

I'm working under the assumption that the Rep. is guilty, but we have to consider just how easy it would be to make an innocent man appear guilty. It's something to think about...

Anyone who watches Hollywood movies knows how easy it is to create a convincing reality on a closed set. Apply that same entertainment movie magic to criminal endeavors, and you have a whole new kind of blackmail, one that doesn't require a compromised individual. As the old saying goes, if you can't find a door, make one.




posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 06:26 PM
link   
WyrdeOne

I think all you say is quite true.



Let's see what a thorough investigation reveals.

But I might add that it is highly unlikely he would resign so quickly without asserting a defense of innocence- if such a defense was indeed something he could assert. I don't think he's done that.

[edit on 30-9-2006 by loam]



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Let me clarify, I don't think this guy is innocent. I just wanted to make the point that we ought not to believe everything we see and read, since our ability to produce forgeries has outpaced our ability to detect them.


Usually an innocent man accused of some horrendous crime is not going to just bow out and accept the verdict. He's going to fight, tooth and nail, to protect his reputation and defeat the accusations.

If someone falsely accused me of something tommorow, you can be damn sure I wouldn't just make a hurried three sentence apology, and then resign. I'd fight like a cornered badger...



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 06:51 PM
link   
WyrdeOne is right, this could very well have been some type of political hit job, but I sincerely doubt it, as much as I'd like to believe it.



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 07:01 PM
link   
I hear ya, WyrdeOne.


I see no problem with considering the possibility of innocence in any of these situations.

The general caution you provide is a good one.



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 07:07 PM
link   
I think this Foley revelation is just the tip of the iceberg when he decides to sing. Sorry about the mixed metaphors The moral high ground that the GOP climbed up on ala Clinton has suddenly turned to quicksand. I expect the Gannon/Gorch scandal to resurface and add fuel to the fire. I can't wait to listen to Rush, and the rest of them come monday.



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 08:04 AM
link   
2 points...one in his defense....from the e-mails that were quoted in the press, all he is really guilty of being a little too friendly and not of being a pedophile, after all 16 is generally considered being of consensual age in most states.

And the one against him... doesn't Foley have a long track record of homophobic rhetoric and a history of voting against gay issues? I am not sure but I think so.

"Lord what fools these mortals be." Puck from "A Midsummer Night's Dream"

Truer words were never written.



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Link

and with all this being said...congress closed up shop a week early and went home....leaving behind a mess of work left undone...to ask you to pretty please, vote for them!!!

so, we can relax a few weeks with the knowledge they can do no more harm at least for the next weeks..

[edit on 5/10/06 by JAK]



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 10:18 AM
link   


from the e-mails that were quoted in the press, all he is really guilty of being a little too friendly and not of being a pedophile, after all 16 is generally considered being of consensual age in most states.


I think you need to read more of the stuff he wrote, especially the IM transcripts, he was clearly sexually harassing this page.

But yeah I don't really get all the "pedophile" talk - that word is really being abused.

Teenagers are not children - if you don't believe me you really need to get to know some teenagers
This idea that teenagers are "children" is historically a very new phenomenon, and pretty much unique to the West still.

The word "pedophile" has seen some serious defenition creep over the last few years. Soon I fear we're going to see any age variation in relationships defined as "pedophilia" - 35yo going out with a 20yo? Filthy pedophile! Demi Moore? Pedophile!!

Give it a break people...

The issue with Foley is sexual harassment of subordinates, not pedophilia.
His comments to this fellow who was in his charge are despicable and totally inappropriate for any workplace, let alone the US Congress. It wouldn't matter if he was 16 or 21, it's still loathesome behavior.

He's a creep, he's a pig that deserves to resign in disgrace, but he's not a pedophile.
If we were talking about a 10 year old and not a 16 year old it would be a different story...



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
If we were talking about a 10 year old and not a 16 year old it would be a different story...



I would hope a complete investigation doesn't find other examples of this behavior, but people who do this rarely have just a single episode. Let's hope there wasn't anyone younger involved. Actually, I would think all his IM's & E-mails should be being collected and reviewed by now. Any word on that?



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 11:02 AM
link   
I'm sure some are scrambling to unearth whatever they can find, while others are scrambling to cover up as much as possible


I tend to doubt there was anyone much younger involved - a true pedophile wouldn't be interested in anyone over say 12 or 13 or so, certainly not a 16 year old.

Despite the current wave of public hysteria, there is from what I've read very little crossover between real pedophiles and what I guess we could call just "dirty old men" - IE the people going after 16 year olds are not generally going to be much interested in young children, and vice versa.

Really I think this blurring of the lines is fodder for media organizations trying to spark a moral panic in order to boost ratings - IE Dateline's "To Catch A Predator" and such. It's a reaction to the fact that horny teenagers now have a new outlet to look for "hookups", basically, and a way of exploiting parental anxieties over their kids growing up. Lets face it most parent's don't want to face the fact that their kids are ever going to start having sex... if it was up to our parents the age of consent would be something like 30


In reality the average American now loses their virginity at about 14 - cognitive dissonance is in full effect as soon as these issues come up.

I have to confess, the first time I ever got on the Internet (nobody really even called it the Internet back then, this was back in the mid-80's), I was 15 and pretty much the first thing I did was try to use my friend's Compuserve account to get laid. And I wouldn't have cared much if it was another teenager or a good-looking 35 year old that responded.

[edit on 10/1/06 by xmotex]



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Actually X, the age groups targeted by those with the predeliction, run the complete gamut. Everything from "prepubescent" to "Adult Teens".


Pedophilia or paedophilia (see spelling differences) is the paraphilia of being sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to prepubescent or peripubescent children. Persons with this attraction are called pedophiles.

In contrast to the generally accepted medical definition, the term pedophile is also used colloquially to denote significantly older adults who are sexually attracted to adolescents below the local age of consent[1], as well as those who have sexually abused a child.
en.wikipedia.org...


Also


Children and young adolescents near the average age of puberty are sometimes referred to as peripubescent in medical literature.en.wikipedia.org...


The studies generally tend to concentrate on the former, however, to understand that, the phenomena of "Older" men being attracted to much "Younger" women, must therefor be examined as well.

Semper



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Don't mistake it, this guy is guilty, AND he is a pedophile. If you read the online transcripts of the chat, he knew very well what he was doing and he knew it was wrong. He asked the boy if the mother had seen his screen when she came into the room. He knew exactly what was up. While he might have been of consentual age for having sex, I think that usually means amongst their own age group not meaning that its ok to have sex with an adult.


If someone was innocent they would not have appologized to everyone and resigned. He would have denied it and fought the whole accusation. Please don't try to make it easy for others to do the same thing by allowing these kinds of people to think they can get away with this stuff merely because they hold high positions and believe that their supporters will see past it. This is not something we should condone or take lightly. The lawmakers should be following the law to the T, not making them just so that we have to follow them.



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Pie,


I think that usually means amongst their own age group not meaning that its ok to have sex with an adult.


Though we usually disagree,

I'm with you 100% on this and it has been my experience that the courts look at it this way as well. Especially in Civil Actions.

Semper



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 12:20 PM
link   
From your own quote:



In contrast to the generally accepted medical definition, the term pedophile is also used colloquially to denote significantly older adults who are sexually attracted to adolescents below the local age of consent[1], as well as those who have sexually abused a child.


Note the bold parts.

To put it in terms you might find it easier to relate to, the term "assault rifle" is used colloquially to refer to semiautomatic rifles with a magazine, even though a true assault rifle is by defenition capable of fully automatic fire.

In other words, people are twisting the defenitions of the terms in order to advance their own social agendas. In one case to advance gun control arguments, in another to redefine pedophilia and indeed "childhood" upward. We're moving toward a society that is eventually going to define "childhood" up into the late twenties if current trends continue. The driinking age is already 21 - is a 20 year old still a "child"?

In most traditional societies, for as long as anyone's been able to keep track, the transition from childhood to adulthood has beenn seen as occuring at right around the age of 13 - hence the Bar Mitzvah, and numerous "coming of age" ceremonies the world over. In almost any era prior to this one, a 16 year old was considered a "young adult", not a child. Are 17 year olds still "children"? If so this country has been sending "child soldiers" into combat for quite a while.

Only in the last hundred years or so has this started to change, due to the labor market pressures of industrialized countries and the need for skilled workers with a decent secondary education. One unintended consequence of this has been a rise in juvenile delinquency, as people who are essentially adults mentally and physically are still treated as "children", and somewhat naturally rebel against it.

Another is the incresing phenomenon of adults completely unable to accept the consequences of their actions - emotionally stunted people who in effect remain as helpless as children for their entire lives - like our current subject Reprepresentative Foley for example...

[edit on 10/1/06 by xmotex]



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Although I agree with your "Exacting" definition and did not want to indicate otherwise. one of the VAST difficulties in society today, is children having children. This has been discussed a little on here as well.

As a society, what duty is more pressing then the protection of our children?

Also if you read the entire article, it also expounds on my premise that one can not ever simply use the word Pedophile to such exact guidelines.

As colloquial as it may be, in this instance you are going to be dealing with (Hopefully) A court and their understanding of the term.

As for the assault rife, well you are dealing with an old Marine. And I LOVE Military history...


Definitions of Assault rifle on the Web:
* This term is an English translation from the German sturmgewehr, which means ``storm rifle.'' It is distinct from a ``high-powered'' rifle because it is chambered (see below) for a less powerful cartridge. The history of the assault rifle is fairly simple to understand: After the development of smokeless powders in the late 1800s, the high-powered rifle was chambered for a cartridge that could kill at 1,000 yards.
www.freep.com/jobspage/academy/guns.htm

* A military rifle intended purely for one-man operation and equipped to provide both semiautomatic or full-automatic fire by means of a selector switch or other fire-control device. Today's assault rifles are typified by the Soviet AK 47 and the US M 16. ...
home.swipnet.se/longrange/glossary_of_terms.htm


As for Pedophiles, maybe Hebephile would be more accurate. Or perhaps just Pervert. LOL


an adult whose primary sexual interest is in children; some professionals make a differentiation between a pedophile, whose sexual partner of choice is a prepubertal child, and a hebephile, who is aroused by adolescents.
nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/usermanuals/sexabuse/sexabuseh.cfm


Semper



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Senators, judges, prosecutors and cops with a penchant for buggery/infidelity/pedophilia and drug abuse made powerful allies for organized crime in America and abroad, because they were easily manipulated, and easily disposed of should they outlive their usefullness (which they often did, self-destructive individuals each and every one).

The days of family-oriented organized crime are almost over in this country. Now the corporate mafia has all the power. But they haven't changed their tactics much. Fewer instances of machine gun slayings in the streets just shows that this new brand of organized crime has refined blackmail, to the point where they don't need to whack a guy. They call in a hit, and the press carries it out. No blood is shed, 9 times out of 10, but the fella is dead and buried for all intents and purposes.


I have to agree with this, because the powerful men who pull the strings set it up this way. Why do you think the people do not pay attention, or have time to really look up what the politician is all about? Most people vote for who looks and sounds like a good guy, or just vote the party. This way it insures only those that have top dollar backing get into power. The system seems to be unrepairably broken. Too many Americans see the TV as the window to the world and think its reality. So many drooling gaping mouth breathers getting fed all this crap.

The masses will never awaken. Fear and terror foriegn and domestic will ensure this. There is no America to mount our shores and take this system down like we did on the shores of Normandy so many years ago. I fear the corporate machine that is America will invelope the world. It seems we are well into a modern dark age.

Somehow the entire system needs to be flushed and something totally new, a system that does not rely on money to get the votes of the people. These people in power make me sick. We need to face the facts, America as we once knew it is dead.



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 02:16 PM
link   


As a society, what duty is more pressing then the protection of our children?


Ensuring they grow up to be fully functional adults.

Which is not going to happen if we treat them as if they were "children" until they're 30 or so... and that's the direction we sem to be headed in.

As far as children having children goes, it's regrettable, but again a case of denial in action. Because they're not "children" anymore once they're capable of having children, by simple biological defenition.

Instead of the weird denial/prurient pattern we see whenever we're dealing with adolescent sexuality, a more forthright & honest approach might work better at preventing unwanted teen preganancies.

It's so odd, in a society where teen sex symbols are a multibillion dollar industry, that we still have this Victorian attitude towards teen sexuality. Look at the careers of Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera - there must be a lot of "pedophiles" out there for them to rake in that kind of dough, eh?

Teens have been having sex since the dawn of the species - Romeo and Juliet were what, 15 and 14? It's only recently that it's come to be seen as as problem.

Again it cuts to the heart of a bunch of modern social taboos, and gets people all upset and irrational, but that's no reason not to face facts - the only way to deal with things that make us uncomfortable is to face them head on.

As it is, teen sexuality is now what homosexuality was in ages past - very widely practiced and almost never honestly discussed.

Also again I'd like to make the point that I'm not justifying what Foley did - like I said the man's a pig and ought to be run out of DC on a rail. Whether I consider it child abuse or not - and really, I don't - it was certainly intolerable sexual harassment of a vulnerable subordinate.

Make no mistake, I think the mans a pig, and whether I think what he did ought to be illegal or not, I think a guy in his fifties sexually pressuring a 16 year old is totally irresponsible and piggish behavior, and would still be even if the page in question hadn't been his direct subordinate. Young adults ought to be treated with some basic respect, just like anyone else, and he was clearly putting unwanted pressure on the page.

As far as assault rifles go, the first modern assault rifle was the German MP44 - like every other assault rifle, a select fire weapon. Pure semiautomatics are not "assault rifles". The M1 is not an assault rifle - the M16 is. The Tokarev is not, the AK-47 is. Etc. etc...

High powered semiautomatics like the M1 or FN-49 (a personal favorite) are considered "battle rifles" - not "assault rifles". Despite the spin you'll get from the Democrats on the issue


[edit on 10/1/06 by xmotex]



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 02:22 PM
link   

As far as assault rifles go, the first modern assault rifle was the German MP44 - like every other assault rifle, a select fire weapon. Pure semiautomatics are not "assault rifles". The M1 is not an assault rifle - the M16 is. The Tokarev is not, the AK-47 is. Etc. etc...

High powered semiautomatics like the M1 or FN-49 (a personal favorite) are considered "battle rifles" - not "assault rifles". Despite the spin you'll get from the Democrats on the issue


And you have the right to your opinion. What I posted was simply the actual definition. One may of course disregard it and assume an opinion of their own.

As far as sexuality goes, you make some valid yet disturbing points.

I don't think I am ready to support a society that thinks along the lines of my Daughter being a sex symbol at age 12 or whatever it is your advocating.

It is disturbing and your term of "Social Taboo" is one perfect example of a page out of the ACLU. The organization that represents NAMBLA.

That should be a clue as too what this represents.

Semper



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 02:24 PM
link   
I have to agree with xmotex here. If this 16 year-old was gay and wanted to be in a sexual relationship with Foley, no crime would have been committed. As it stands, it just seems he got unwanted sexual offers, which while might give him a great civil case, but I doubt is really criminal.

[edit on 10/1/2006 by djohnsto77]




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join