ACLU Leader Indicted on Child Porn Charges

phoenix80

phoenix80

Banned
A former youth sports coach who is a former president of the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia has been indicted on child pornography charges.

The indictment states that 51-year-old Charles Rust-Tierney used a computer in his 10-year-old son's bedroom to view child pornography. He's charged with one count of receiving child pornography and one count of possessing it.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Theresa Buchanan says the material found on Rust-Tierney's computer was the most perverted, nauseating and sickening child pornography she has seen in ten years on the bench. Prosecutors say the images included sexual torture of children - many under 12 years old.

Federal officials say he got it through several credit card purchases, ranging from just under $80 to $150.

Rust-Tierney was president of the board of directors of the ACLU's Virginia affiliate from 1993 to 2005 and resigned from the ACLU's board the day he was arrested.

http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0507/422181.html

wonder if ACLU defends him....
Click to expand...
 
ACLU Leader and child porn........ Hmmm..... Who didn't see that one coming.

Figures that most folks in leadership positions are infact criminal perverts. But hey, the ACLU is the American Communist Liberal Union, so I wouldn't expect any less from them. Some of their members more than likely eat young first born male childern to stay in power.
 
So what's the sentence for something like this? Anyone who looks at real child porn is certainly perverted... and if they absolutely can't control those urges they should get some of the disturbing "artwork" from Japan, it's custom tailored just for such people AND no children are actually involved.

Sure I admire some of the things the ACLU does, like keeping religion out of the supposedly secular government, but this is the kind of thing that just makes you lose faith.
 
Well, throw him in general population at a federal prison and tell all of the murderers and thugs that this guy hurts childern. Prison is a strange place.

You can kill twenty adults and the other prisoners think you're alright. But the moment you harm kids. You're dead. It's like the unwritten rule of crime. Don't harm kids.
 
5.56X45mm said:
Well, throw him in general population at a federal prison and tell all of the murderers and thugs that this guy hurts childern.
Click to expand...

I thought he just looked at child porn and not make it.... He still won't have many friends in prison, but he didn't physically harm any children. Other perverts did that and those can find almost anywhere...

On a positive note; al least he had the common sense to resign.... there are many cases where the purpetrators didn't even do that untill they really really really have to.
 
Ted said:
I thought he just looked at child porn and not make it.... He still won't have many friends in prison, but he didn't physically harm any children. Other perverts did that and those can find almost anywhere...

On a positive note; al least he had the common sense to resign.... there are many cases where the purpetrators didn't even do that untill they really really really have to.
Click to expand...


Are you justifying his actions? Possession of pedophile type materials is as bad as making them. They are only a step removed from each other.
 
No, I am certainly not justifying his actions and think he should go to jail. But I think it is judicially speaking not right to say he hurt children.... He looked at it and should be tried on that charge. It is too easy to make everything the same.... isn't it?
 
Without people like him (buying child porn) there would not be (I think) as many people willing to harm children to make money. Therefore I think buying it is on the same level as making it. One contributes to the other. There should be no distinction.
 
But there still is a judicial distinction. The acts support one another and without nobody buying it, there would be nobody making it... Except for the real filthy bastards. But the act of making child porn and watching it are still different and should be tried different (still). And I think that any LEO should make a nuance between the two acts simply because the law says so... Until it is made equal it should be seen as different, regardless of your personal feelings. These do not belong in any interpretation of the law.
 
As a LEO, I view those that buy and watch child porn as sick and ****ed up as those that make it. Because of their acts of watching and buying such flith. They support those that kidnap and harm childern to make that flith.

It's the same like those that donate money to terrorist. Sure, they don't strap bombs to their own chests and blow themselves up along with innocent women and childern but in reallty it's all the same. Because the money they give to said terrorist allow them to strap bombs to their chests and kill themselves along with innocent women and childern.

Let the bastard get the living **** beat out of him in prison...... Harm childern and you go to a special place a hell. The same place that folks that talk in movies go to along with people like Adolf Hitler and Terrorist scum....
 
Ted said:
But there still is a judicial distinction. The acts support one another and without nobody buying it, there would be nobody making it... Except for the real filthy bastards. But the act of making child porn and watching it are still different and should be tried different (still). And I think that any LEO should make a nuance between the two acts simply because the law says so... Until it is made equal it should be seen as different, regardless of your personal feelings. These do not belong in any interpretation of the law.
Click to expand...

You must think that what I am saying I am stating as fact. I am stating it as my personal observations and opinions.

It should be viewed as one and the same.

We both agree that the acts support one another. This leads me to feel that if you prosecute one just like the other there will be less of either in the world.

Attempted murder does not appear to be as bad as actual murder, yet in many cases the two are given nearly the same penalties due the the fact that the intent to commit grevious bodily harm was there. Bit of a difference but the same logic, in my opinion, still applies.
 
5.56X45mm said:
Let the bastard get the living **** beat out of him in prison......
Click to expand...

Oh... you don't know how he's going to have that happen to him literally :p.

Marinerhodes said:
Attempted murder does not appear to be as bad as actual murder, yet in many cases the two are given nearly the same penalties due the the fact that the intent to commit grievous bodily harm was there. Bit of a difference but the same logic, in my opinion, still applies.
Click to expand...

Actually, attempted crimes are given half the sentence of the actual crime itself except for murder (so you're right about that). In California, attempted murder yields life in prison without parole. Here's something interesting; conspiracy to commit a crime yields the same sentence as if the crime was carried out but attempting the crime yields half the sentence. Funny how you get a lesser charge for actually trying to commit a crime, but a full on sentence if you only plan it.

Although I agree with both Ted and Marinerhodes, from a legal standpoint there is a distinction, and the person who makes the child porn will get a heavier sentence than the one who uses/views it. Just like with drugs; sellers tend to get more time than users if both have relatively the same criminal histories.
 
Last edited:
Marinerhodes said:
You must think that what I am saying I am stating as fact. I am stating it as my personal observations and opinions.

It should be viewed as one and the same.

We both agree that the acts support one another. This leads me to feel that if you prosecute one just like the other there will be less of either in the world.

Attempted murder does not appear to be as bad as actual murder, yet in many cases the two are given nearly the same penalties due the the fact that the intent to commit grevious bodily harm was there. Bit of a difference but the same logic, in my opinion, still applies.
Click to expand...

Well I think we agree on this one!

5.52, I know we had our different opinions in the past (to put it mildly, but you are scaring me a little here. Do you let your personal opinions influence your work? I mean you do have a clear set of rules about suspects, charges, crimes etc?
 
I am very proud to have a friend who works for the Federal Bureau of Prisons. One day, one of the inmates who was incarcerated for child rape and making and selling child torture porn was bragging about how much he had made doing so, and pissed off my friend. So my friend went into the computer, and changed the statues that the guy was incarcerated under to rape and pornography, and had the guy moved to GenPop.

The guy was fairly tough. He lasted 6 hours, instead of the 2 hours that was the bet amongst the Trustees. And he whined the whole time he was being transferred to GenPop.

That's what should happen to this clown.
 
Last edited:
Sapper Mike said:
I am very proud to have a friend who works for the Federal Bureau of Prisons. One day, one of the inmates who was incarcerated for child rape and making and selling child torture porn was bragging about how much he had made doing so, and pissed off my friend. So my friend went into the computer, and changed the statues that the guy was incarcerated under to rape and pornography, and had the guy moved to GenPop.

The guy was fairly tough. He lasted 6 hours, instead of the 2 hours that was the bet amongst the Trustees. And he whined the whole time he was being transferred to GenPop.

That's what should happen to this clown.
Click to expand...

Not sure if you should be putting this out there. Possibly your friend may get into some trouble?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top