Posted on 06/10/2010 5:20:00 PM PDT by driftdiver
Child porn is illegal under both state and federal statutes. Are you saying that tea parties are illegal under state and federal statutes?
Reread my initial reply to you.
That has not clarified things. To my knowledge, there is no law against tea parties. No one has come after me yet. But there are books of laws proscribing child porn.
Someone who is arrested, is a SUSPECT; not a CRIMINAL. It is the investigation, and if needed the prosecution and trial that determines that a suspect is a criminal - NOT THE ARREST.
"You really don't know how our system works do you", because YOU don't know the definition of the terms used in the system. DHS's "investigation" powers ONLY establishes "suspects". It is the Justice Department and their activities, NOT DHS, that FIND (the trial) that a suspect IS IN FACT a criminal.
If one were a "criminal" merely on the say so of whoever made the arrest, you could dispense with the Justice Department AND the Judiciary and outfits like DHS could end the whole matter with their "arrest". But, this is the USA, not Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia or Red China.
It is not the "evidence presented" by whomever makes the arrest, that makes the case, but the evidence the Justice Department believes substantiates the case (if they do) and that determination includes their own analysis of "evidence" and the "investigation" that continues after it is given to the prosecutor is done, not independently of the prosecutor but (a) in cooperation with the prosecutors office and often at their direction and to SATISFY the prosecutor. ANY prosecutor who simply takes the "arresting" authorities report, and their word, and nothing else and files the case in court, has not done their job. That's not an "investigation" from a Justice Department perspective.
"And do you really think either the law enforcement or the criminal justice agency is going to make public all of the evidence in a child porn case?"
That's not the point. The point is that that additional "evidence" is not in the public record so YOUR claims as to any particulars about it are worthless and just speculation, not "evidence".
So, OK maybe it's permissible to seize property for people who possess kiddie porn. But where does one draw the line? Is it ONLY kiddie porn? That hardly seems consistent if statutory rape isn't included. If we're going to include statutory rape, how can we exclude a violent rape and murder where the victim is tortured before being decapitated? Endangering out republic is a serious crime, too. Imagine the potential for loss of life with person or persons committing treason or sedition. Tea Party participants have been described as committing both.
Beyond all that, planting files on a laptop is relatively simple. Humans write the software that prevents it and humans can write software to programmatically get around it. It's a dangerous slippery slope that can easily remove freedoms from anyone a power-hungry government wishes to target.
Did you grow up in this country? Why do I doubt it. In this country, our COURTS, and specifically JURIES, decide whether the accused is indeed guilty and therefore a criminal. You think the Justice Department determines that? Where do you think prosectors get evidence? They get it from law enforcement. Here is how it works: law enforcement (evidence and information gathering; apprehension) —> criminal justice (decision to prosecute) —> courts of law and juries (determination of guilt). Also, I am appalled that you believe evidence in child porn cases should be made public. I supposed you want the photographs from rape prosecutions made public, as well. I disagree.
I am sorry, but you lost me. Why would someone commit statutory rape, and go to all the trouble to somehow record it on their laptop, travel overseas with that content and return with it still on their laptop? Ditto murder. Ditto violent rape and murder. And separately from the well traveled and documented statutory rapists, you think US Customs and Border Protection agents seize the laptops of random people at airports and plant files on them? Do you think they have a quota, or do they do it on their own? Because they are power-mad? Where is this happening? I guess I am just too naive and trusting.
Naive doesn’t even begin to cover it.
I may be naive, but for a “Christian,” you are awfully nasty and paranoid. What’s more, posing nekkid with a hatchet on a public forum sends a truly bizarre mixed message. Thank you for the laugh. Bottom line, I trust my judgment over yours any day of the week.
You don't actually READ what's written, or at a minimum you bypass what you chose to, when you do read.
As I said, it is the trial process, not the "arrest" process that determines who is a "criminal"; where all your early posts claimed the suspect was a "criminal" simply due to the DHS arrest. Open your ears, by reading more carefully what is written.
"Where do you think prosecutors get evidence? They get it from law enforcement. Here is how it works: law enforcement (evidence and information gathering; apprehension) —> criminal justice (decision to prosecute) —> courts of law and juries (determination of guilt)."
Your problem is that you think "investigation" and investigatory powers end with and are situated entirely in the "arresting" authority and that beyond what the arresting authority does the prosecutor (DA) sits waiting helplessly for what the arresting authority does on their own to prove the case. As I said, the prosecutors, whether local, state or federal are not helpless and they are not without their own resources when it comes to the totality of any "investigation", and in fact the arresting authority is often tasked directly by the prosecutors office for some of the additional investigative work, when THE PROSECUTOR believes it is necessary. Why? Because the prosecutor must believe that the evidence is sufficient to bring the case to trial, and will not sit idly dependent on the "arresting" authority when and if they - the prosecutor - believes the case requires more "investigation". Your idea that the prosecutor proceeds only because of and simply by the say so of the arresting authority is Stalinesque fiction.
If that were the case, we would have many more useless trials (than we already do) as prosecutors were hamstrung to deliver up for trial every case the arresting authority handed to them (whether or not the prosecutor believed in the case) and if they had no powers of their own to improve upon the investigation of the cases they did choose to proceed with. You give the prosecutors too little (or no) respect in the totality of any "investigation".
"Also, I am appalled that you believe evidence in child porn cases should be made public."
Again, more evidence that you don't read what is written. NO WHERE did I make a plea that evidence in child pornography cases all OUGHT TO BE made public. What I did do was I noted that any additional "evidence" IN THIS CASE, other than the initial photo, WAS NOT MADE PUBLIC OR EVEN SUMMARILY DESCRIBED and therefore YOUR ATTEMPTS at trying to characterize the exact nature of that evidence ("100s of videos") is your speculation and not factually reported "evidence".
That is not a request that it SHOULD BE reported, in all it's lurid detail, but simply a cautionary note that no one (YOU) should make-up their own fictional list of evidence in a case. You can assume whatever you want about it, you cannot state your assumption as if it is "evidence" ("100s of videos"), without that statement being understood as your speculation and NOT "the evidence".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.