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.

Army spokesman Lt. Mary J. Pekas declined to discuss details of the case or evidence against Miller. She said the charge is punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
www.sacbee.com/827/story/2465848.html


he could probably shoot a 4 year old Afghani kid dead and get away with it.

I suspect there is more to this than meets the eye; either he's being set up or he's not being honest with his family.

"The soldier's mother e mailed the photos to him "

Seems pretty clear cut - the Mother has sent out family photos. Surely she should be arrested if they show a buttock !!

Crazy world.

Here's another link to a different report of the same story :

www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/01/mom-...ving-child-porn.html

JK2006 wrote:
I suspect there is more to this than meets the eye; either he's being set up or he's not being honest with his family.

possiblly..one can never belive a 'news' report at face value from either point of view.

however you point out something important..I'm sure it would be so easy to set up someone this way.

It will be a fit-up. He'll have spoken out-of-turn to someone or his face won't fit or somesuch - the forces have been at it for years using similar tactics as do the Police and many other organisations.
It's what paedo-hysteria and it's nouveaux laws were invented for - a weapon.

I think this is one of the most bizzare cases I've read about so far. A soldier has a pretty innocent (by the standards of anyone with the slightest iota of common sense) photo of a four year old relative (his neice, I believe) in a swim suit and gets charged with possessing child porn because of it. By that standard of craziness, I reckon the sixty years old black and white photos of me, aged 3 years, happily building sandcastles on Southport beach in 1950 could be classed as child porn by these numbskulls. Especially as I'm wearing my little swimming trunks. "Why have you got photos of yourself as a little boy in the family album?" they may ask. "Why shouldn't I have photos of myself as a little boy in the family album?", I would ask in return. Am I in some horrible bloody nightmare, or is this really happening in the modern world?

You'll see an interesting passage in 65 where the police are indeed grilling me about a black and white photo of a kid in swimming trunks - me!