The Constitution explicitly outlaws Ex Post Facto laws - and does so twice, to be sure.

However, the U.S. government has a way around Constitutional limitations it does not like. It simply ignores them. They all pretend that the limitation is not there, and just do what they want.

In recent years the usual "justification" for usurpation of power are the twin "threats" of terrorism and pedophilia. The "terrorists" are generally people who are upset because the United States government - or the thugs it supports - have been killing their friends and family; and scapegoating pedophiles is a no-brainer - they're generally too gentle and peace-loving to fight back much.

The U.S. has now allowed pedophiles to be held indefinitely after they have served their full sentence for any crime they may have been convicted of, and even though the change allowing indefinite detention was made after their conviction. This is clearly an ex post facto law, as well as violating due process, but the Supreme Court has officially declared it's OK - so who cares what the supreme law of the land actually says?

The U.S. has also sent agents to a foreign country (the Netherlands) to kidnap a foreign national for "crimes" committed in a foreign jurisdiction. IIRC, this happened in the 1980s, and was also connected to pedophilia. In the late 1980s the U.S. government also invaded Panama in order to enforce U.S. laws there, despite not having any legal jurisdiction, more recently the U.S. government has exercised jurisdiction on British businessmen who operated gambling websites based in central America (IIRC), and the U.S. and Britain have both declared worldwide jurisdiction on pedophiles.

So, the U.S. government has already declared the Constitution null and void, in everything but name. The U.S. government has already established the principle of allowing ex post facto laws, and the U.S. government has already established precedents to claim worldwide jurisdiction on several types of laws - and it has used the two non-threats of terrorism and pedophilia to justify them all. And, of course, the United States government is waging war on Love itself. I leave it to the reader to determine who is actually threatening the peace of the world.

First, pedophilia means an attraction to children. It has nothing to do with rape or molestation - and in fact, most cases of child rape are committed by persons who are not pedophiles. This is not only my opinion, but the opinion of many researchers and the FBI. Equating pedophiles and child molesters is like referring to all heterosexual men as rapists.

Even in the rare cases where actual pedophiles have had sexual contact with children, most bona fide researchers and law enforcement have observed that pedophiles almost never use violence. In contrast, research has found that those who are sexually violent against children are almost never attracted to the children - that is, they are not pedophiles.

Second, pedophilia is not a fetish. Pedophilia is a sexual orientation. It is, as you say, not justifiable - just as being an American, or a European, or an African is not justifiable. These things just are.

Third, what makes people angry at pedophiles is a combination of ignorance, fear of the unknown, yellow journalism, xenophobia, and grandstanding politicians. The "pedophiles" that the public is angry at are not even pedophiles - two diametrically opposed groups have somehow been merged into one in the public mind - but it is very difficult to get the truth out.

The question is, once the truth comes out and the public realizes that there was never any serious threat from pedophiles, or terrorists, or illegal aliens, or whatever other bogeyman the politicians come up with to justify the loss of freedom - will it be too late?

... and if you had visited that link, you would have discovered that most child molesters are not pedophiles - that is, they are not attracted to children. Most child molesters are men who are attracted to women but have an opportunity - often coupled with impairment (drugs, alcohol, mentally ill) that lets them molest or rape a child.

Psychologically healthy people - whether attracted to men, women, boys, or girls - do not rape other people.

But hey ... ultimately it's your freedom that your choice to be ignorant will cost you.

Once again a western government uses the drummed-up fear of pedophiles as a stalking horse to eradicate human liberty. The damnedest thing is that pedophiles are about as peaceful a group of people as can be found - but I suppose that is why the government has chosen this target. It's harder to crack down on minorities who are inclined and strong enough to strike back.

It's easier to hire the angry people to put down the peaceful people than the other way around, and get the angry people to accept the loss of freedom as "necessary" to the struggle.

A few facts about the bête noire du jour. Remember, the loss of your freedom depends on the people never learning the truth ... at least, until it is too late.

Of course the U.S. government doesn't lock up the crazies. Their "tolerance" for people that no one would ever believe is their evidence that nothing is wrong and all is right in the world.

If you look into the FBI going to Mexico to arrest Jon Schillaci you will believe differently. First, note that he was named one of the FBI's 10 Most Wanted because he was accused, years ago, of touching a boy's penis. Never mind that there were no accusations of rape or any kind of force, just an unreliable allegation that he touched a boy's penis. Regardless of how wrong you might think that may be, how does it justify putting a man on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted list and featuring him on the "America's Most Wanted" TV show? Aren't there enough murderers, bank robbers, thieves, and actual rapists (you know - the kind who used force) to lead that list?

Of course, Jon Schillaci was also the webmaster for a leading site where posters presented a view that contradicted the State's official teachings. In other words, he was a heretic against the State. All of a sudden it makes sense why the government targeted him and put him in jail. Modern tyrannies don't say they are censoring dissidents. They always give some plausible reason why they arrest those who challenge them.

Alternately, consider the case of Jack McClellan, a girl lover whom the State of California issued a restraining order against because he openly advocated for the rights of pedophiles. This restraining order was so broad that it essentially required Jack to leave California even though he was never convicted, or even seriously accused, of any crime.

These are only two of the more prominent cases.

No, the United States doesn't suppress dissent. No, the United States doesn't put people in jail for expressing opinions. They always find another excuse - except when they don't.

I beg leave to go diverge from the subject at hand for a bit, but I think it is relevant. Although we all know China censors the internet, our greater concern is that all the other nations of the world will follow - or are already following - China's example.

These leaks have proven that all our "democratic" governments routinely lie to their employers (the people). Naturally this should cause us to ask what else our governments have lied about.

Of personal concern to me are the lies told about pedophilia and child abuse: specifically, the truth - from many sources - is that non-pedophiles are more likely to abuse children than pedophiles, that females are more likely to abuse children than males, and that parents are more likely to abuse children than non-parents.

So who do the government and their media accomplices target while claiming to protect children? Non-parent male pedophiles. "Stranger danger" and all that.

I suspect that the government believes that pedophiles, by offering children freedom and affection, are a threat to the power of the state, because they offer a compelling alternative narrative to that which the state force feeds its charges during 12 years of compulsory indoctrination - which is, of course, that they must obey the state at all times, no matter what the state might do to them.

I am looking forward to the day that WikiLeaks receives some inside information from the National Center for Misusing and Exploiting Children.

I say that this is of personal concern to me, but it should also be of great concern to the entire public. Our western governments routinely use the fear of pedophiles to justify the apparatus of censorship. Why should the government be allowed the capability to censor websites? Because they might contain images of naked children, naturally. Why should the government have the right to snoop on our emails? Well, how else are we going to stop those evil pedophiles - you know, those male, non-related people who aren't abusing children? The people of the Western world will never be able to challenge the installation and use of the apparatus of censorship until the demonization of pedophiles and the legal discrimination against pedophiles and children ceases.

It remains to be seen whether the public will be able to let go of their prejudices long enough to save themselves.

Certainly the OP shouldn't be making a shrine to his children's mother, and require them to make daily devotions to her . . .

But memory is also how some of us honor those who came before us, and remember all that they did for us to make us who we are. I am in a rare condition of having video of relatives who died 70 years ago. Perhaps it is best that it is just a short clip showing them as living, breathing human beings, but I am glad to have it.

I *do* agree with those who think that too much video is just a distraction. My general belief is that video memories should be restricted to one hour per year. Even so, no one will want to look at 90 hours of video of themselves when they are 90.

There may be some exceptions for special events, and written memories are far more valuable as they take the least time to review. Stories about the past are best written down, with a few audio or video samples to go with them.

When I saw the original article this was my thought too - the many stories my grandparents and parents have told me about their childhoods - or even *their* parents' childhoods - give me a sense of continuity that pictures alone cannot give.

Simple text files can capture many of these, especially if your wife does well with writing, and having it directly from the source instead of half-remembered memories is invaluable. Memory is notoriously unreliable, after all - especially memories of what someone else told you.

Likewise, any information about family and ancestry - now is the time to pass that information down, and while you're at it go ahead and record your own information - various little stories from your life, and your parents and grandparents too. Maybe a few on video, but written form is even better for compactness and usability.

All the best to you and your family.

"the pornstar in question showed up at his trial and testified that she was 25 at the time the movie was made. People in the comments section of the article were universally of the opinion that he got off on a technicality." Ah! Technicality! So THAT'S what they're calling 25yo porn stars these days.

Just one other little point that is usually overlooked: Most child abusers, sexual or otherwise, are NOT pedophiles. That is, they are NOT primarily attracted to children. They have other motives for their crime, or often are under the influence of alcohol or other drugs.

At least, that's what the data from the FBI and other law enforcement agencies shows.

According to a document posted by Wikileaks, a company from eastern Europe that sold subscriptions to child erotica (nudity, but no sex) around 2003 was getting 15 million unique visitors to its main page per month.

It is hard to know the actual numbers, as research in this area is suppressed, but it would appear that among men:

90% are sometimes attracted to prepubescent girls.

20% to 30% are attracted to girls at least as much as to women.

3% to 10% are exclusively attracted to girls.

Figuring approximately 300 million in the USA, and roughly 50% male, this means:

120 million sometimes attracted to girls.

30 million to 45 million attracted to girls as much as or more than to women.

4.5 million to 15 million are exclusively attracted to girls.

This does not include boy lovers or female pedophiles, so the true numbers are larger.

You've got to stop believing the media and the government. They lie.

You're not sick. Little girls are HOT! Women are . . . not.

Studies show that 90+% of men are sometimes attracted to prepubescent girls, 20-30% find girls at least as attractive as women (or moreso), and a guesstimate for exclusive attraction to girls is maybe 3 to 10%.

Let's turn those into numbers, using a figure of 300 million Americans, half of whom are male:

That would be at least 120 million who sometimes like little girls, at least 30 million who find girls at least as sexy as women, and at least 9 million (more than the population of New York City) who are exclusively attracted to little girls.

Plus there are the boy lovers and female peds. We are not a small community, despite what our enemies would have you believe.

And looking around, I believe I see some signs of change. We will not be silent much longer.

I am not opposed to child pornography. It is ludicrous to believe that possession of a photo inherently causes harm. We used to laugh at people who objected to being photographed because it stole their soul - now we jail not only the photographer but anyone who can be proven to have seen the image.

That said, I wonder how these guys got work in Security. I mean, everyone knows that the paysites are mostly FBI honeypots, and - incidentally - the FBI has even put new child porn into general distribution via these sites, so I wonder about the intelligence and judgement of those who paid for cp. Likewise, why on earth were they using government computers for this? They must be reckless idiots.

Anyone with even a modest understanding of security would at least be using TOR or a proxy, and only accessing this material from a non-monitored computer, preferably one with no personally identifiable information on it. The lack of even these simple steps suggests that these people are unsuited to their profession.

Of course, these are only the ones that got caught. Other evidence from a decade ago suggests that ten years ago perhaps 10 million Americans were accessing child pornography, and the true number is probably much higher - especially if one includes pictures of 16 and 17 year olds. At some point we will have to come to realize that we can't put everyone in jail for violating someone else's sensibilities.