# Ill. soldier's family says pictures aren't porn



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 16, 2010)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/15/AR2010011503868.html


> CHAMPAIGN, Ill. -- The family of an Illinois National Guard soldier said Friday that he's been charged with possession of child pornography in Afghanistan over innocent snapshots of a 4-year-old relative in a swimsuit.
> 
> The U.S. Army has charged Spec. Billy Miller of Galesburg, Ill., with possession of child pornography and a related charge of failure to obey an order that troops in Afghanistan not possess pornography.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 16, 2010)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ssion-child-porn-afghanistan/?test=latestnews


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jan 16, 2010)

Good thing that people in the US don't overreact when it comes to sexuality or the exposure of skin....

My wife had a pic of our kids in bath as her desktop image.
Sometime ago she went to the US for work purposes. Before she left I took her laptop and removed that pic from her desktop, the folder in which it was, and the local cache.

She really thought I was being paranoid, but I told her that if her laptop was inspected upon entry to the US, or if the wrong person saw that pic in her company, she was in for a lot of trouble. She grumbled a bit, using the word 'stupid' but at least she gave in.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jan 16, 2010)

Actually I am wondering: with Americans being this paranoid, how can e.g. daycare parents do their job without fear for being accused of indecent things?
Or the instructors of the swimming team if a kid has to go to the toilet?
Or any of the other dozen professions where people sometimes come in contact with kids that are less that fully covered from ankle to neck?


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 16, 2010)

Mentalism of the highest order.  No doubt born from good intentions (tho more likely self-serving ones if the impetous for the law came form a politician) but stupidity nontheless.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jan 16, 2010)

What the old army saying? "Kill them all and let god sort them out"

You're all guilty until proven otherwise.

What did that article say? No porn for soldiers?? Come on a swimsuit model photo in a barracks is like water in a lake. WTF?


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 16, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> What the old army saying? "Kill them all and let god sort them out"
> 
> You're all guilty until proven otherwise.
> 
> What did that article say? No porn for soldiers?? Come on a swimsuit model photo in a barracks is like water in a lake. WTF?


That's because she's wearing a swimsuit and covering her naughty bits... not like a playboy/penthouse/hustler centerfold where her naughties are exposed, thus covered it's photography, uncovered it's PORN!

Having pictures of children... now it's illegal. Especially if they're swimming to bathing or just gosh awful cute running around the house nekkid after a bath and one just HAD to get a picture because it was adorable... not SEXY just adorable. 
Can you prove that?

We're currently discussing this on another thread... looks like a merger might be needed soon enough.


----------



## crushing (Jan 16, 2010)

MA-Caver said:


> That's because she's wearing a swimsuit and covering her naughty bits... not like a playboy/penthouse/hustler centerfold where her naughties are exposed, thus covered it's photography, uncovered it's PORN!
> 
> Having pictures of children... now it's illegal. Especially if they're swimming to bathing or just gosh awful cute running around the house nekkid after a bath and one just HAD to get a picture because it was adorable... not SEXY just adorable.
> Can you prove that?
> ...



There are no naughty bits on the human body.  The naughty bits are in people's heads.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 16, 2010)

Of course there's another way to look at this. A soldier accused of having kiddie porn isn't going to admit to his family that he has so he's going to say 'well all I had was some photos of a family member and the army is picking on me, poor me'. The family convinced of his innocence goes to the media who all report it it as a case of the army being over zealous, the army of course won't comment because it would compromise any legal/court martial proceedings. 
Don't be so quick to judge because you've only got one side of the story here.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 16, 2010)

crushing said:


> There are no naughty bits on the human body.  The naughty bits are in people's heads.


Exactly... so it's the people who are saying THAT'S PORN and that's adorable. 
So the idiot that saw the pictures of the soldiers' niece said that it was porn and thus has the problem. Eliminate the self-made porn czar of the military  and you get rid of a lot of problems.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 16, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> What did that article say? No porn for soldiers?? Come on a swimsuit model photo in a barracks is like water in a lake. WTF?



hey man, we have to be SENSITIVE to the enemy.  No Dogs, No Pork, no Women, no Alcohol...

*rolls eyes*


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 16, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Of course there's another way to look at this. A soldier accused of having kiddie porn isn't going to admit to his family that he has so he's going to say 'well all I had was some photos of a family member and the army is picking on me, poor me'. The family convinced of his innocence goes to the media who all report it it as a case of the army being over zealous, the army of course won't comment because it would compromise any legal/court martial proceedings.
> Don't be so quick to judge because you've only got one side of the story here.


Bears repeating.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jan 16, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Of course there's another way to look at this. A soldier accused of having kiddie porn isn't going to admit to his family that he has so he's going to say 'well all I had was some photos of a family member and the army is picking on me, poor me'. The family convinced of his innocence goes to the media who all report it it as a case of the army being over zealous, the army of course won't comment because it would compromise any legal/court martial proceedings.
> Don't be so quick to judge because you've only got one side of the story here.


 
Agreed.
But, he didn't bring the photo's with him, he didn't download them, his Mom sent them to him!


----------



## grydth (Jan 16, 2010)

What we don't yet know is whether the family photos are in fact the pictures that he is being prosecuted for.... and if so, what those pictures show.

To get a felony level prosecution in the Army after an arrest, there has to be referral through the chain of command to general officer level, and consultation with and action by the Judge Advocates office. 

While I can see an occasional screwball thinking its wise to persecute, er prosecute, a soldier for innocent family pics, here we are supposed to believe there are at least 6 or more nutty officers all in one unit.

I'm thinking Tez is on the right track here.... we need to see and hear more to have a rational opinion.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 16, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> Agreed.
> But, he didn't bring the photo's with him, he didn't download them, his Mom sent them to him!


 

We don't know if that's the photos he's been charged with having though, we only have his relative's word for it and they will be campaigning to have him off the charges.  
I can't see the American chain of command being much different from ours tbh so I doubt that it would go all the way to what I assume will be a court martial just because of some family photos. 
I think perhaps he's being done for 'proper' kiddy porn and had to tell his family something not thinking that they would leap to his defence (and props to them for doing it, it's what families are for). It's only his family that are saying the photos are of his niece, we really ought to wait and see what the charges refer to.


----------



## TKDHomeSchooler (Jan 16, 2010)

Why the hell are we allowing this crap to go on in our military.  We are about to try 3 SEALs in Iraq for splitting a man's lip, another Ranger is going to court marshal for killing an insurgent in self defense.  We are railroading this Soldier for a picture of a little girl he got know know as a friend, that was taken by her Mom.

We get fired upon from inside a friggin mosque but are not allowed to do anything about it.  We are bringing the  war criminals who don't fight under a country's banner back to the US for civilian trials with US rights.

We apparently want to get beheaded on our own soil, we have become panty waisted sloths!  I fear for America, I love America but am afraid we are loosing who we were.

We need to fight this war the way we did in WWII, to win and not to appease the world.  Did the French complain then when we killed thousands of Nazis liberating them?  Did Russia say we were jumping in to places we don't belong (nope, they chipped in some blood and guts too).


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 17, 2010)

TKDHomeSchooler said:


> Why the hell are we allowing this crap to go on in our military. We are about to try 3 SEALs in Iraq for splitting a man's lip, another Ranger is going to court marshal for killing an insurgent in self defense. We are railroading this Soldier for a picture of a little girl he got know know as a friend, that was taken by her Mom.
> 
> We get fired upon from inside a friggin mosque but are not allowed to do anything about it. We are bringing the war criminals who don't fight under a country's banner back to the US for civilian trials with US rights.
> 
> ...


 

So you know for certain beyond all possible doubt this soldier isn't a paedophile then and he's not lying? That the photos he's saying he's been done for are the ones and not the other kiddie porn he may have? And you know without any possible doubts because you were there and eyewitnessed every single event that you are quoting thats what happened in the other cases?
You would lynch people on the basis of a newpaper report of what someone else is saying? Someone with a vested interest in believeing their relative is telling the truth because to think he's guilty is unimaginable? 

Take a deep breath and sit down and think over things. What appears to be the truth very often isn't, I don't know the other cases you mentioned but before I make any judgement about anyone or anything I want to hear from all sides and see how things fit together.

We don't know what photos he's been charged with having, we can't make any worthwhile comments until we do. Unless you are there, unless you have read all the statements and unless you understand how things are in a war situation, you really can't rant, rave and retain anyones respect for your views.

As for bringing people to trial, it's the _civilised_ thing to do, the _correct_ thing to show our enemies that we are actually better than they are, that we have morals and we allow all people to have fair representation in courts. It shows we are not murdering terrorist bastards who kill indiscriminately, we believe in the rule of law and will behave like decent human beings even when all around don't. To kill them out of hand makes us as bad as them.   

It may make you feel better to rant and froth at the mouth but it really doesn't read well.


----------



## TKDHomeSchooler (Jan 17, 2010)

Tez3, I'll agree that all sides need to be heard and a proper trial.  I still feel the Navy SEALs should not be standing trial, nor should the US Ranger.

I have thought, and will continue to think, that we need to fight this war the way we did during WWII and Korea.  The politicians need to sit down, shut up, and let the military do what they do best; win.

I admit my previous post was a bit of a rant, I just hate what the current US Administration is doing to my country, and it's heroes in uniform (Military, Border Patrol, etc.).  The country I served, my family served, and I have friends who have died in her service.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 17, 2010)

No man should be above the law and the military aren't above the law. You can't say that people should get away with things they would be punished for in civvy street just because they are military and the person they injured is not an American. Besides I doubt a soldier would be discplined for killing someone in self defence so again it suggests there is more to the story than just senior officers or politicians getting involved. Soldiers fight outside times they are supposed to as I know very well, if someone is injured because they have been fighting yes the guilty should be disciplined. The military are perhaps held to account far more than civilians, that's maybe fair or not, probably it's another discussion but they are as human as anyone so you really need to see more than yet another governmental plot to take over the world everytime.

Fighting the war the way it was in the last and the Korean war is not the way to go. This war isn't just about armies facing off against each other, it's far more involved in that and our troops are doing far more than just fighting. There is a perception that military leaders are complete idiots and pick on soldiers but while, as in all walks of life, there are idiots the majority know their jobs and I doubt the situations you have quoted are what they seem to you. I have interviewed many soldiers and attended in various forms ( but not as the accused!) many court martials. 


These days wars seem to be treated as sports games, everyone thinks they know how to run one and how they would deal with it, the truth is unless you've been there or are in the military/work with them, the chances are you have little idea of modern warfare other than that gleaned off television or films.


----------



## TKDHomeSchooler (Jan 17, 2010)

I don't totally disagree with you.  I just think that our rules of engagement set forth by politicians who don't know what it is like to face an opponent in battle are unrealistic.

Oh, BTW, I was an Army Combat Engineer and I still associate with many active duty and former Soldiers, Airmen, and Marines with the occasional Sailor.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 17, 2010)

TKDHomeSchooler said:


> I don't totally disagree with you. I just think that our rules of engagement set forth by politicians who don't know what it is like to face an opponent in battle are unrealistic.
> 
> Oh, BTW, I was an Army Combat Engineer and I still associate with many active duty and former Soldiers, Airmen, and Marines with the occasional Sailor.


 
Oh good lord you are going to have excuse my mind but when you said you associate with the occasional sailor I cracked up! I do know how you meant it though, it's my English squaddie-type mind, sorry!

Very often Americans think they will win a conflict by sheer force of numbers and it's doesn't always work that way. This is our third war in Afghanistan, the score is win one draw one so far, not sure how this one will work out. It's not just the politicians that need to rethink this it's also the way Americans conduct wars or even if they need to make war in the first place. I think you have learned little if anything from Vietnam. Your Army is fine for First World War type battles but guerilla warfare is alien to it. No, that isn't an insult to it's fine service people btw.

We need a massive hearts and mind operation in Afghanistan along with a security operation and we need to bear in mind that it won't be a military victory that will bring peace but a political solution. We have to, now we are there, to bolster the police and the political system and make sure it is a democratic one. 

We also have to be seen to behave ourselves with the greatest propietry and humanitarism. If soldiers do wrong they should be punished not excused because they are at war. Our military regs have always banned pornography, generally though soldiers act with discretion and little is done about it. If, however, it's kiddie porn or as we've have had to deal with child sexual abuse, the full weight of the military disciplinary system is thrown as them as it should be. If we don't behave ourselves properly we have no right to try and tell others how to behave. We must be the example that others look to, _for our sakes_ as much as theirs.


----------



## TKDHomeSchooler (Jan 18, 2010)

Tez3, the more and more we talk the more we tend to agree.  I agree we need SpecOps on the ground working on alliances and training.  My main concern is the method in which our troops are neutered in battle by rules.

I'm sorry, but if someone fires at my squad from inside a mosque, it's gone.  I would not advocate toasting a religious site, but when the enemy bunkers down inside it is no longer a religious site but a fox hole and is fair game.

I also agree we need to be perceived as better than them.  That is why we don't use women and children as shields, that is why we won't enter certain places as they are holy to the countrymen we are protecting.  But we are not fighting a war of religion, the way the Islamic extremists are.  Those battles are hardly ever won without one side being exterminated.


----------



## Carol (Jan 18, 2010)

I think this touches a few nerves.  

One is the standards that are troops are held too abroad, and whether they are unreasonably strict. 

Another is the view that people have of the military in the US.  I think the majority of Americans are supportive of our armed services (support of their Commander in Chief varies ), but there are also people that will say "I support our troops" and then in the same breath say some very hurtful things about our men and women in uniform.   I didn't serve, but my 19 year old (homeschooled btw) niece does.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 18, 2010)

TKDHomeSchooler said:


> Tez3, the more and more we talk the more we tend to agree. I agree we need SpecOps on the ground working on alliances and training. My main concern is the method in which our troops are neutered in battle by rules.
> 
> I'm sorry, but if someone fires at my squad from inside a mosque, it's gone. I would not advocate toasting a religious site, but when the enemy bunkers down inside it is no longer a religious site but a fox hole and is fair game.
> 
> I also agree we need to be perceived as better than them. That is why we don't use women and children as shields, that is why we won't enter certain places as they are holy to the countrymen we are protecting. But we are not fighting a war of religion, the way the Islamic extremists are. Those battles are hardly ever won without one side being exterminated.


 
We don't use Spec Ops for alliances and training, we use the troops who have the best training for the job, our Spec Ops are used for covert ops.
I don't know what the story was about being fired on in a mosque but  I can think of a couple of reasons for not firing back none of which involved being 'neutered'. there may have been innocent women and children in the mosque?  I think such decisions are usually made by commanders on the ground and I wouldn't want to second guess them without any information. 
In the British rules of engagement the first rule is the right of a soldier to use force for self defence, I can't imagine yours are any different?

I think in the first place what people need to do is not jump down on stories like the OP on one side or another but to take time to think and not make judgements without facts. Perhaps take a police officers eye to the story and look at it from all sides?


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Jan 19, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Perhaps take a police officers eye to the story and look at it from all sides?



:roflmao:


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 19, 2010)

FieldDiscipline said:


> :roflmao:


 

Well he only needs one eye really lol!


----------

