Fired Senator Boxer aide faces child porn charges

Fired Boxer aide faces child porn charges
AP via SFGate ^ | 11/13/8

A high-level aide to California Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer has been charged in federal court with receiving and distributing child pornography.

The aide, Jeff Rosato, 32, was arrested last Friday. Boxer's office fired him that same day, as soon as it learned about the charges.

Rosato appeared in federal court in Virginia on Wednesday and was released to home detention on condition he not interact with children or use a computer. He was not required to post any bail or bond money but was being told to undergo medical treatment.

(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...

He was not required to post any bail or bond money but was being told to undergo medical treatment. Was that before or after they slapped him on the wrist with a wet noodle? (Why is Democrat pedophilia not as serious as Republican pedophilia--vis-a-vis Mark Foley?

"(Why is Democrat pedophilia not as serious as Republican pedophilia--vis-a-vis Mark Foley?"

Well Terri I could be wrong but I dont remember Foley having to post any bond either.

How much did he have to post?

Also far as I know Foley was not confined to home detention nor barred from using his computer.

So if it's consistency you are expecting it looks like it was your guy who got preferential treatment.

sodbuster wrote:"(Why is Democrat pedophilia not as serious as Republican pedophilia--vis-a-vis Mark Foley?"

Well Terri I could be wrong but I dont remember Foley having to post any bond either.

How much did he have to post?

Also far as I know Foley was not confined to home detention nor barred from using his computer.

So if it's consistency you are expecting it looks like it was your guy who got preferential treatment.

So, you think that Boxer's pedophilic employee should have received better treatment?

No.

I just take issue with your implication that he had received preferential treatment.

Keli wrote:

He was not required to post any bail or bond money but was being told to undergo medical treatment. Was that before or after they slapped him on the wrist with a wet noodle? (Why is Democrat pedophilia not as serious as Republican pedophilia--vis-a-vis Mark Foley?

"No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

"No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

No. We have been told that that only applies to US citizens. That makes Gitmo totally cricket.

TerryRC wrote:"No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

No. We have been told that that only applies to US citizens. That makes Gitmo totally cricket.

Don't worry. I think Obama will start taping the COTUS back together starting 21 Jan.

He flipping better.

As a constitutional lawyer, he has no excuses for anything but.

And if he doesn't?

TerryRC wrote:He flipping better.

As a constitutional lawyer, he has no excuses for anything but.

Stephanie wrote:And if he doesn't?

Well, first he has to find where Little George and Big Dick have hidden all the bits and pieces.

TerryRC wrote:"No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

No. We have been told that that only applies to US citizens. That makes Gitmo totally cricket.

So is it your position that prisoners of war should be granted constitutional rights?

Aaron wrote:

TerryRC wrote:"No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

No. We have been told that that only applies to US citizens. That makes Gitmo totally cricket.

So is it your position that prisoners of war should be granted constitutional rights?

Oh Clyde!!! You better check with Big Dick and Little George before you confer POW status on the folks at Gitmo.

Our treatment of prisoners of war should comport with the guidelines of the Geneva Conventions.

No torture, beatings, humiliation, etc.

I agree Sherman. The Geneva Convention is for POW's. The constitution is reserved for American citizens.

I also agree about torturing prisoners and that it shouldn't be done. The only problem is the definition of torture. Do you know what it is? For instance, is denying sleep torture? How about playing loud music? Or denying cigarettes?

I mean, it's easy to say we shouldn't hook a battery up to someone's testicles and crank it up, but what about the gray areas?

And what if Joe Blow knows when and where a nuke is going to be set off, and it's known beyond a shadow of a doubt he knows. What then?

Your suggestions?

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/24/usint8614.htm

There is a pretty good discussion of the issue at the link above.

And protections are not entirely limited to the terms of the Geneva Conventions, i.e.

"III. U.S. Law

The United States has incorporated international prohibitions against torture and mistreatment of persons in custody into its domestic law. The United States has reported to the Committee Against Torture that: “Every act of torture within the meaning of the Convention is illegal under existing federal and state law, and any individual who commits such an act is subject to penal sanctions as specified in criminal statutes. Such prosecutions do in fact occur in appropriate circumstances. Torture cannot be justified by exceptional circumstances, nor can it be excused on the basis of an order from a superior officer. “

Military personnel who mistreat prisoners can be prosecuted by a court-martial under various provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ, arts. 77-134).

The War Crimes Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. § 2441) makes it a criminal offense for U.S. military personnel and U.S. nationals to commit war crimes as specified in the 1949 Geneva Conventions. War crimes under the act include grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. It also includes violations of common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; …outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.

A federal anti-torture statute (18 U.S.C. § 2340A), enacted in 1994, provides for the prosecution of a U.S. national or anyone present in the United States who, while outside the U.S., commits or attempts to commit torture. Torture is defined as an “act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control.” A person found guilty under the act can be incarcerated for up to 20 years or receive the death penalty if the torture results in the victim’s death. "

You forgot to define torture or answer any of the questions I ask.

bmd wrote:

TerryRC wrote:He flipping better.

As a constitutional lawyer, he has no excuses for anything but.

Stephanie wrote:And if he doesn't?

Well, first he has to find where Little George and Big Dick have hidden all the bits and pieces.

I have several copies. I'll be happy to send him one, just in case he doesn't know what it says.

I'll be happy to provide one to you too.

Stephanie wrote:

bmd wrote:

TerryRC wrote:He flipping better.

As a constitutional lawyer, he has no excuses for anything but.

Stephanie wrote:And if he doesn't?

Well, first he has to find where Little George and Big Dick have hidden all the bits and pieces.

I have several copies. I'll be happy to send him one, just in case he doesn't know what it says.

I'll be happy to provide one to you too.

Got some metaphorical tape to go along with it?

So you don't think he'll delay restoring the Constitution? You figure he'll get right on it?

Stephanie wrote:So you don't think he'll delay restoring the Constitution? You figure he'll get right on it?

I think that he will do his best to do so. But, given that he has eight years of BS (some legislative, some via executive fiat) to undo, I think that we have to be realistic as to a time frame (not to mention that virtually everyone has at least a slightly different idea as to the correct interpretation of the COTUS).

The bottom line is that I think that President Obama will bring some sanity back to how our executive branch views constitutional protections and international obligations.

I'll believe it when I see it. I won't say more than that because I have made a firm commitment not to criticize Obama for things I think he may or may not do. Time will tell.

I have been wondering what Obama might do to get the Ron Paul activists on board working for positive change.

They have probably more energy and enthusiasm than just about any other group.

I had thot maybe he could find him a position having to do with foreign policy, but am having second thoughts because Paul is such a purist I fear he could not bring himself to compromise on anything so might not be very effective.

I am thinking now it might be better to put him somewhere that he could work for restoration of our individual freedom and reversal of this idea of government intrusion.

I believe he would be good for that for the very fact he will not compromise and I would like to see no compromise on that.

I see one of the biggest threats to liberty in the creation of this new so-called Homeland Security Dept. I would feel a whole lot better if it was headed up by someone like Paul who would not compromise and would not tolerate overzealous officials trampling on our rights.

But I doubt if he would take it, unless it was for the purpose of dismantling it.

And I doubt if Obama would actually want to dismantle it.

Does anyone else have any ideas where Paul might fit in and work for positive change from within the Administration?

The only thing Obama is likely to offer Ron Paul is to shake his hand.

Dr. Paul is the anti-Obama.

So is it your position that prisoners of war should be granted constitutional rights?

Well, Gitmo is American soil and the COTUS says "no person shall be deprived...", not "no citizen...".

We refuse to give them POW status, civilian status or citizen status.

We have deprived them of all of the things we believe necessary for a free nation.

Even if Bush is following the letter of the law (and I do not concede that), he is ignoring the spirit of it.

You may be comfortable with that, but I am not.

And if he doesn't?

I'm an independent, Steph, not a partisan hack.

As a constitutional lawyer, if he tramples it, I will be outraged.