Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Pentagon to Investigate Child Porn

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by davespanners

Hard pressed ehh

There must be an awful lot of whistle blowers about these days "







I need some clarification. Are you saying that people who view pornography
are inclined to actually act out their fantasy ? If so, can it be extrapolated to all
venues that stimulate libido ?

If you read the legal definition ( which I provided but I gather you may not have read ) age is the predominate factor.
My post was not intended to provoke a knee jerk response based on the inflammatory nature of the subject.

The issue ( for me ) is one of alleged National Security and security clearances.

The Pentagon is going after people who have intentionally ( Illegal ) downloaded Child pornography < What ever the hell that is. To narrow it down, we have a legal definition NOT hysteria.

It could easily become a slippery slope. What if the addy was not intentional ? What if it is honest academic research. And the icing on the cake is they apparently are NOT going after producers of this stuff, but the individuals who have it on their computers.

As the above person stated, REAL CHILD PORNOGRAPHY is rare.
I've had the distasteful task of viewing same, and it is shockingly gruesome.

I simply find that someone LOOKING at a picture should be labeled a criminal and lose a job that requires a security clearance.

If one want to compromise a security holder for info. Money is still king ! Not some lame porn site with individuals who may or may not be of legal age for the purpose of blackmail or public exposure.

Just my opinion, and we all know about opinions.




posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by dazbog
 


Well I do not know what they are considering child porn whether its 18 y/o or 10 y/os, but I can answer your question about what of they were doing academic research. Anytime someone in the military (and I imagine DOD offices) needs to do legitimate research, especially onis a taboo topic like child porn they have to receive special permission and computer access before doing so. Anywho, whether they were looking at child porn, regular porn, hell tranny porn, I don't care what kind. I just feel that since this country has many problems that need to solved the last thing I want is the people who can possible fix the problem sitting around watching porn of ANY kind, especially child porn, no matter what one considers child porn to be.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by dazbog
 


The person above did state the real child pornography is rare and thats why I posted all those links, it's not rare at all.

We aren't talking about people accidentally accessing a site here, we are talking about people that were traced through their credit card numbers and paypal accounts that were used to buy access to web sites that offered child pornography.

If you think that people are paying money to look at people that are 17years and 11months old when there are 10million naked 18 year olds available for free in the internet then I don't think your right.

As I said before these are people that have used government computers to commit a felony.

edit on 18-9-2010 by davespanners because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Heres a little data on the child pornography that you seem to want to portray as people innocently looking at people that might be slightly under 18


The United Kingdom Children's charity NCH have stated that demand for child pornography on the internet has led to an increase in sex abuse cases, due to an increase in the number of children abused in the production process.[33] In a study analyzing men arrested for child pornography possession in the United States over a one year period from 2000 to 2001, most had pornographic images of prepubescent children (83%) and images graphically depicting sexual penetration (80%). Approximately 1 in 5 (21%) had images depicting violence such as bondage, rape, or torture and most of those involved images of children who were gagged, bound, blindfolded, or otherwise enduring sadistic sex.


80% depicted prepubescent penetrations and 21% depicted rape bondage and torture

link

edit on 18-9-2010 by davespanners because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by mateandbucky06
reply to post by dazbog
 


Well ....................... whether they were looking at child porn, regular porn, hell tranny porn, I don't care what kind. I just feel that since this country has many problems that need to solved the last thing I want is the people who can possible fix the problem sitting around watching porn of ANY kind, especially child porn, no matter what one considers child porn to be.



No disagreement here Amigo. Plenty of time to be weird & stupid on ones off time.
Losing their security clearance due to a felony conviction is serious and will follow them until their dead. Heavy price for logging on to a website.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by davespanners
Heres a little data on the child pornography that you seem to want to portray as people innocently looking at people that might be slightly under 18






The United Kingdom Children's charity NCH ........................ "


80% depicted prepubescent penetrations and 21% depicted rape bondage and torture

link

edit on 18-9-2010 by davespanners because: (no reason given)




Daves I appreciate your effort in locating and referencing ' The News Reports' in your first couple of links . Unfortunately due to lack of definition "Child Pornography" which frequently differs from Country to Country, I have no clue what these folks have been accessing.

Again the cases pending in the OP are allegations that involve National Security issues NOT deviant behavior. Although any behavior that would give one pause to question.......... Can this employee be compromised by a foreign asset who could use this information against him to gain assess to classified material would be of concern. Other then that, I suspect they have been dragging their feet in light of it being of little consequence.


As far as your last link ( data ) is concerned, please see my signature.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Ohh right so quoting from an article that properly lists statistics and sources and news sources is "Trivial" but your personal opinion based on absolutely nothing at all is valid


Well I sure can't argue with that kind of logic

edit on 18-9-2010 by davespanners because: (no reason given)


I guess these stats from a child protection charity are also invalid
link





edit on 18-9-2010 by davespanners because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Or you could go here and read the actual paper.

There I've found the same data without using the EVIL wikipedia. Or are research papers funded by the US congress also Trivial in your opinion


My argument has nothing to do with the national security part of your posts, it's to do with your attempt to lessen the seriousness of the crime of downloading child pornography by stating that


"REAL CHILD PORNOGRAPHY is rare"

and then later in the same post


"Not some lame porn site with individuals who may or may not be of legal age"

again you seem to be trying to imply that there is some justifiable level of child pornography that isn't "REAL"

There is no "May or may not" about this crime, and REAL child pornography is not rare at all in fact as is stated in the paper it's far more common for people to be arrested for having images of prepubescent penetration .torture etc then this strange idea you seem to have of "acceptable" "non real" child porn that isn't really a crime



edit on 18-9-2010 by davespanners because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join