Homeland official arrested in online sex sting

[Cotton]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12159118/

"Agency's deputy press secretary held for soliciting for a child on Internet"

What the heck? These are the guys that are suppose to protect us.

[Michael P]

Jesus. If there's any department that should catch shit like this when it vets it's employees, it's that one.

[JolietJake]

I don't know whether to be outraged or laugh hysterically.

[Noah Johnson]

Jesus H. Christ on a skateboard. This is outrageous.

I'll tell you, I'm actually less pissed that he was macking on a supposed 14-year-old girl than that he was doing it so stupidly. The guy's job is with DHS, that's high-security work that's supposed to be actually important. Schmuck wants to chase jailbait, that's bad, but it's not a national security matter.

The fact that our nation's security is being guarded by people so boneheadedly stupid that they will give out their real name and their work number WHILE DOING SOMETHING THEY KNOW IS ILLEGAL...

We're screwed. We need to find a nice nation somewhere, surrender to them, and hope their occupational government is at least minimally competent. That would actually be an improvement.

[MKTerra]

Figures... the DHS has consistently (http://news.com.com/Homeland+Security+flunks+cybersecurity+prep+test/2100-7348_3-5722227.html) flunked (http://news.com.com/DHS+scores+F+on+cybersecurity+report+card/2100-1009_3-6050520.html) on cybersecurity.

[spideyrules99]

Holy crap is there any one in the goverment who is honest? I mean christ when we cant ever trust the homeland guys I fucking give up.

[Noah Johnson]

Holy crap is there any one in the goverment who is honest? I mean christ when we cant ever trust the homeland guys I fucking give up.
Actually, I'd assume they'd be less trustworthy.

I mean, it's a department created and staffed entirely by this administration, which we know from experience is dangerously incompetent when it comes to hiring for important jobs.

[Rachel Grey]

I don't know whether to be outraged or laugh hysterically.

Willow: Right there with ya...

[StoneGold]

And right after the absorbed CTU! The bastards!

[Paul McEnery]

Well, I hate to be a dick...

...all right, I don't...

But we finally reached a Samurai-free zone.

It is not outrageous that this guy did what he did.

It is not surprising that he did what he did.

What he did is totally the way these sunsabitches operate. Public morality, private evil.

I'm greatly hoping that everyone in America except the sadbastard 33% of my party/country/dumbass-understanding-of-my-religion right-or-wrong catches a clue.

But they won't, so we've all got to work harder to vote the bastards out.

[Greg Blackman]

Well, I hate to be a dick...

...all right, I don't...

But we finally reached a Samurai-free zone.

It is not outrageous that this guy did what he did.

It is not surprising that he did what he did.

What he did is totally the way these sunsabitches operate. Public morality, private evil.

I'm greatly hoping that everyone in America except the sadbastard 33% of my party/country/dumbass-understanding-of-my-religion right-or-wrong catches a clue.

But they won't, so we've all got to work harder to vote the bastards out.

Sadly I have to agree with you paul. I might have been outraged if this was the first time I heard of something like this happening, or even the one thousand and first time. But it's not.

While I choose to believe that guys like this are a minority within a group of decent hardworking responsible people, it erodes trust in the organisations they inhabit every time we hear about one of them.

Now I personally am a cynical leftie who believes that power corrupts and has no inherent trust in authority. So the most this elicits from me is a cynical sigh. I can only imagine what effect this has on the kind of person who trusts authority implicitly. It must seriously shake their world view.

[Cotton]

Hmmm...ya know, he reminds me of Robin Williams from the movie One Hour Photo:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/060404/060404_doyle_vsml_8p.vsmall.jpg http://www.flakmag.com/film/images/onehour.jpg

[spazzy mcghee]

HA!! Cotton thats almost uncanny. Aren't these guys supposed to know who and when and where these stings are going off? Friggin' policy makers!!!

[JeffreyWKramer]

Yet another example of the outstanding moral character of the officials in this Administration. We've got Interior officials taking bribes, Homeland Security officials soliciting sex from underage kids... when will the details of W and Cheney's satanic sex rituals go public?

[JeffreyWKramer]

But we finally reached a Samurai-free zone.


What happened to him?

[Chiasm]

There are child molestors in every occupation and every company that employees a sizeable amount of people. Government included. As well as police themselves. Background checks only catch you if you've been caught before. Its not like the applicant says "by the way, I molest kids but I really want the job." Which is why I don't see it as a big deal that he worked for homeland security. Guaranteed there are others. Simple sick fact of life.

[Forefinger]

And right after the absorbed CTU! The bastards!
I know! Now I want that bitch HS woman from 24 to be busted for trying to bang a 14 year old girl!

[HomerJay]

The fact that our nation's security is being guarded by people so boneheadedly stupid that they will give out their real name and their work number WHILE DOING SOMETHING THEY KNOW IS ILLEGAL...
This is pretty much how I feel.
It seems like there's at least one new story in the paper every week about a perv trying to meet a teen girl/boy that was actually a cop, so why do people continue to try to arrange these meetings? Is it the thrill? Is it like jumping out of an airplane with a pack that may or may not contain a parachute? Or are they just plain zip-a-dee-do-dah stupid?

What frightens me is that how many smart/careful/calculating molesters are still out there, because it seems like we only catch the stupid/sloppy ones.

[Kid Omega]

There is a phenomenon with people in positions of relative power, wherein they do foolish things, not because they are stupid, but because they think they can get away with them.

There was a study done among a group of psychaitrists (sp?) after Clinton's impeachment hearings, that came to the conclusion that he actually wanted to be caught. He liked the idea of "getting away with" things, and had a subconscious need to be caught, to show off how much he could get away with.

I think that this afflicts people with all levels of authority...which is why we are seeing so many republicans caught with their pants down so to speak.

It's a "I'm getting away with this and I can't believe it! Now watch as I get incredibly sloppy about it, and STILL not get busted!"

Maybe?

-a

[Noah Johnson]

There are child molestors in every occupation and every company that employees a sizeable amount of people. Government included. As well as police themselves. Background checks only catch you if you've been caught before. Its not like the applicant says "by the way, I molest kids but I really want the job." Which is why I don't see it as a big deal that he worked for homeland security. Guaranteed there are others. Simple sick fact of life.
Well, sure. Like I say, the fact that a highly-placed DHS official is a closet jailbait fan is not a problem, it's a statistical inevitability. The fact that a highly-placed DHS official is verifiably dumber than a sack of shrimp, that's a problem.

[JeffreyWKramer]

The fact that a highly-placed DHS official is verifiably dumber than a sack of shrimp, that's a problem.

Yup. Though even this shouldn't come as a complete shock, given what Hurricane Katrina revealed about the competence of folk in charge at FEMA/Homeland Security.

[HomerJay]

Though even this shouldn't come as a complete shock, given what Hurricane Katrina revealed about the competence of folk in charge at FEMA/Homeland Security.
I gotta say that the X-Files conspiracy theorists who said that FEMA was waiting in the wings to begin a "New World Order" after a catastrophe look pretty stupid now. FEMA has shown that they wouldn't even be able to assume control of a Dairy Queen.

[JeffreyWKramer]

FEMA has shown that they wouldn't even be able to assume control of a Dairy Queen.

Though they probably would come up with something like the Hot Dog Blizzard.

[Spackling Compound]

I know! Now I want that bitch HS woman from 24 to be busted for trying to bang a 14 year old girl!

Urmmm...k.

I read the story. Despicable and what an ego! To think some girl would be attracted to him. Right.

What exactly is the online sex?
Is it language? Is it pictures? or does it actually constitute a meeting with the teen?

Just wondering because a lot of "language" flies here...and in the eyes of children. Could that be....illegal?
Pictures too..at times.

[Michael P]

What exactly is the online sex?


It's like phone sex, but typing.

And no, you've never seen anything like it on CBR.

[Harlock]

Holy crap is there any one in the goverment who is honest?

Uh, no. The last honest person in government I remember was Jimmy Carter and he was so honest he was a bad politician and lost to an ACTOR. That should give a very good indication as to what honesty there is in government.

[Tom]

Urmmm...k.

I read the story. Despicable and what an ego! To think some girl would be attracted to him. Right.

What exactly is the online sex?
Is it language? Is it pictures? or does it actually constitute a meeting with the teen?

Just wondering because a lot of "language" flies here...and in the eyes of children. Could that be....illegal?
Pictures too..at times.
You know, you bring this up a lot - and in the vaguest terms possible. I don't see it at all and I can guarantee I read more posts than you do. Where are children being propositioned for sex or even partaking in any sort of sexual conversation here? Where is the pornography being viewed by children here? For that matter, where are the children here?

[Typo Lad]

where are the children here?

That's what the folks at DHS want to know.

[Spackling Compound]

You know, you bring this up a lot - and in the vaguest terms possible. I don't see it at all and I can guarantee I read more posts than you do. Where are children being propositioned for sex or even partaking in any sort of sexual conversation here? Where is the pornography being viewed by children here? For that matter, where are the children here?
This case of the DHS agent is not as clear as some of the other cases where a man/woman set up a meeting with a child and showed up in the designated meet spot only to be caught by the police.
The story here is about exchanging dirty talk and pictures. I am sure the pictures are illegal. The language too.
However, the larger issue I'm asking here is where does the line get crossed in language and pictures? If someone here posted and asked about someone's sexual fantasies and a fifteen year old responded and engaged a conversation with other adults about sex, then would that be "illegal"?
The language issue ("talk") is a bit sketchy to me.
The pictures as well, as there are instances of minors showing off their pics to catcalls and whoops from other people. Not a bad thing, really, but is there a line?
That's the only point I'm making here.
Because if speech can/can't be harmful to children, then maybe we should all take a look at the use of that freedom here.

[JeffreyWKramer]

This case of the DHS agent is not as clear as some of the other cases where a man/woman set up a meeting with a child and showed up in the designated meet spot only to be caught by the police.
The story here is about exchanging dirty talk and pictures. I am sure the pictures are illegal. The language too.
However, the larger issue I'm asking here is where does the line get crossed in language and pictures? If someone here posted and asked about someone's sexual fantasies and a fifteen year old responded and engaged a conversation with other adults about sex, then would that be "illegal"?
The language issue ("talk") is a bit sketchy to me.
The pictures as well, as there are instances of minors showing off their pics to catcalls and whoops from other people. Not a bad thing, really, but is there a line?
That's the only point I'm making here.
Because if speech can/can't be harmful to children, then maybe we should all take a look at the use of that freedom here.

Spack, you presumably know the difference between a minor asking questions or commenting on others' statements about sex, and a minor and an adult engaging in sexual repartee, with the adult attempting to seduce the minor.

I know damn well you know the difference between people posting a cheesecake photo and someone calling a minor "cute", and someone posting penetration shots of two or more people fucking.

I think everyone knows pretty well where the line is, and on the odd occasion someone crosses it, the mods or someone else calls them on it pretty quickly, and the offending image or conversation gets deleted.

[Kid Omega]

However, the larger issue I'm asking here is where does the line get crossed in language and pictures?

"Doyle sent pornographic movie clips and had sexually explicit conversations via the Internet, the statement said."

"On several occasions, Doyle instructed the girl to perform a sexual act while thinking of him and described explicit activities he wanted to have with her, investigators said.

Doyle later had a telephone conversation with an undercover deputy posing as the teenager and encouraged her to purchase a Web camera to send graphic images of herself to him, the sheriff’s office said."

...

I find it pretty gross when adult men at CBR tell underage girls that they are sexy. It has happened. And said adults are ALWAYS chastised, in public and in private.

But the line between that and the above is wide and apparent.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Whoa, Kam and me agreeing on something other than some comic sucking or not. How often does that happen?

Spack helps people find common ground.

[Ray R.]

This case of the DHS agent is not as clear as some of the other cases where a man/woman set up a meeting with a child and showed up in the designated meet spot only to be caught by the police.
The story here is about exchanging dirty talk and pictures. I am sure the pictures are illegal. The language too.
However, the larger issue I'm asking here is where does the line get crossed in language and pictures? If someone here posted and asked about someone's sexual fantasies and a fifteen year old responded and engaged a conversation with other adults about sex, then would that be "illegal"?
The language issue ("talk") is a bit sketchy to me.
The pictures as well, as there are instances of minors showing off their pics to catcalls and whoops from other people. Not a bad thing, really, but is there a line?
That's the only point I'm making here.
Because if speech can/can't be harmful to children, then maybe we should all take a look at the use of that freedom here.

My understanding based on the local news reports is that this scumbag sent fourteen explicitly hardcore.avi movie files to the cop posing as a fourteen year old and asked if "she" was interested in engaging in any of the activities shown in the videos.

That does not happen here, in any way, shape or form, Spack.

I think we all can draw the distinction between occasionally bawdy, sometimes inappropriate, and now and then flirty or immature behavior and the open solicitation of a minor by e-mailing movies or photographs of hardcore sex acts.

Slam would probably know the average local ordinances on solicitation of a minor better than I would, but I imagine to make a federal case involving interstate transmission of obscene materials with intent on sexual assault or statutory rape that the evidence be pretty clear-cut and convincing, i.e., explicit and damning.

Let's not mistake "adult" conversation, which at worst here at CBR I consider PG-13 or very soft R in equivalent, kinda like "South Park" or "Wonder Showzen" or half the shows on Adult Swim, with "illegal" conversation. Because I can tell you, the community at large here would not tolerate it.

[Justin Davis]

Here's something I just heard and then read about that I haven't seen anywhere else.

Investigators say the undercover cop Doyle was talking to was posing as a fourteen year old girl recovering from Leukemia. (http://www.wzzm13.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=52430)

Emphasis on leukemia is mine. (odd that it's capitalised in the article)

He sent pornographic images, movies, and sexual suggestions to who he thought was a 14-year-old girl with leukemia?

That takes a special kind of scum.

Like Noah, I'm just as worried that we have someone as stupid as this in Homeland Security.

[Spackling Compound]

Spack, you presumably know the difference between a minor asking questions or commenting on others' statements about sex, and a minor and an adult engaging in sexual repartee, with the adult attempting to seduce the minor.


I guess that's the deal. I don't know how "stings" go down.
I sometimes think about "drug" stings where the officer almost initiates the person into the "deal" and then gets the perp busted.

Sex is another story altogether.
If a police officer "disguised" as a teen says to an older man, "So, what kind of sex do you like?" and the man responded, "Kinky and I like this n that in my woo hoo and ding ding." Would that be enough to bust the guy?
I just think it sometimes looks like entrapment but if not, then could any underage person who online engages in sexual talk with an adult be within their rights of being sexually molested?

That's the line I'm talking about.

[Justin Davis]

Wow. This is some shocking stuff. (http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Moral_Values)

First, please do me a favor. Ignore the fact that this focuses on Republican and conservatives. I know that may be hard for some, either wanting to defend or offend, but don't go to that arguement. Almost every one of the names has a link to a news article citing the story involved or the information is taken from sex offender registries. Even though there are big buckets of hypocrisy by people on that list, I'm less concerned about the offenders' party affiliations than I am that so many people on this list were in the government at some point. Some still are, in rather high-profile positions too. Shocking.

Here's another Homeland Security man busted in October who pleaded no contest today. (http://tboblogs.com/index.php/newswire/comments/officer_pleads_no_contest/) The big kicker with this one? He's the former head of a national program formed to target child sex predators

[Cotton]

Here's another Homeland Security man busted in October who pleaded no contest today. (http://tboblogs.com/index.php/newswire/comments/officer_pleads_no_contest/) The big kicker with this one? He's the former head of a national program formed to target child sex predators

Talk about conflict of interest...

[Spackling Compound]

Talk about conflict of interest...
You don't buy from your own supply.