Possessing Porn Illegal in Army, at Least in Afghanistan

I mentioned the alleged child porn case of Illinois Army National Guard Specialist Billy Miller here just the other day.  Well, the Army is stating that Miller is not being charged with possessing child porn, but adult porn, as far as I can tell, as the Army’s convoluted responses as to what exactly Specialist Billy Miller is being charged with are so ambiguous that Miller could be charged with anything from stealing candy to murder.

A child pornography charge and a related count filed against an Illinois Army National Guard soldier in Afghanistan do not stem from family photos of a young relative, a U.S. Army spokesman told The Associated Press on Tuesday.

But Army spokesman Master Sgt. Thomas Clementson said in an e-mail that he can’t say what the charges against Specialist Billy Miller of Galesburg are based on.

“In this case however, it was important to set the record straight with regards to the photos of the (relative) being portrayed as evidence leading to child pornography charges in this case. They are not,” Clementson wrote.

The Washington Post article noting the above then continues this way.

Miller was charged Jan. 5 with possession of child pornography and with disobeying an order prohibiting U.S. troops in Afghanistan from possessing pornography.

So is Billy Miller being charged with possession of child pornography or not?  In the first quote noted here the Army spokesman states “he can’t say what the charges against Specialist Billy Miller…are based on,” and in the very next quote we read that Miller is being charged “with possession of child pornography and with disobeying an order prohibiting U.S. troops in Afghanistan from possessing pornography.”

Because I think that adult individuals who get their sexual jollies via children are abhorrent, I can possibly understand prosecuting an individual for possessing child porn, but prosecuting a soldier for possessing porn in Afghanistan is just stupid, as that Army order prohibiting U.S. troops in Afghanistan from possessing pornography is simply political correctness foolishness.

Army: Family photos not basis for porn charge

UPDATE: A reader has sent a link to the blog Sentencing Law and Policy, which is a member of the Law Professors Blog Network.  The Sentencing Law and Policy blog has a post up in regards to this case titled US Army soldier facing questionable(?) child porn charges.  The post has no further information than I have posted, but is interesting reading none-the-less, as the commentors on the post referenced state they do have JAG or other legal backgrounds.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/21 at 08:53 AM

  1. John,

    I was going to send you a link to a web page, by a law professor, about this case.

    When I clicked “send” I got this message.


    “Action denied. Blacklisted item found.”

    Keep in touch. Don’t know if your address is in my address book, or not.

    Posted by Gerald Baker  on  01/21  at  01:08 PM

  2. Action denied. Blacklisted item found.

    I wonder what that means?

    Posted by John Venlet  on  01/21  at  02:32 PM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


Next entry: Update Repair Drudgery

Previous entry: Skip The Census, Survey Says...

<< Back to main