Uh Oh... Government Investigating Military Gay Porn Site

RALEIGH, N.C. -- Army officials are investigating allegations that members of the celebrated 82nd Airborne Division appear on a gay pornography Web site, a spokeswoman said Friday.

Authorities at Fort Bragg have begun an inquiry into whether the paratroopers' actions violated the military conduct code.

Division spokeswoman Maj. Amy Hannah declined to say how many paratroopers are involved or identify their unit within the division. A defense official speaking on condition of anonymity said up to seven soldiers are involved.

Hannah said soldiers questioned will be allowed to seek legal assistance, but she declined to say if any one had been charged.

"Once the investigation is complete, the chain of command will take appropriate action," Hannah said.

The military-themed Web site does not appear to make any direct reference to the 82nd Airborne or Fort Bragg. The registered owner of the Web site's domain name lists an address in Fayetteville, the city that adjoins Fort Bragg.

E-mails to the registered owner were returned Friday as undeliverable, and the phone number listed on the domain-name registration is no longer in service.

The Web site includes a disclaimer, asking users to agree that they are not agents of the U.S. government, Department of Defense, members of law enforcement or reporters.

Martha Rudd, an Army spokeswoman at the Pentagon, said soldiers accused of homosexual activity might be removed from their units, although she did not have specific information about the investigation of the 82nd. When asked if the soldiers involved had been moved out of barracks, Hannah declined to comment.

"We are concerned about the privacy and rights of each trooper involved and that they are treated with dignity and respect," Hannah said.

Maj. Todd Vician, a Defense Department spokesman in Washington, said the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy states that "homosexual orientation alone is not a bar to service, but homosexual conduct is incompatible with military service."

"We define homosexual conduct as homosexual acts or verbal or nonverbal communication that a member is homosexual," Vician said.

The 82nd Airborne is one of the most celebrated units in the military. Its 15,000 troops are trained to deploy anywhere in the world within 18 hours.

Soldiers from the division have served extensively in Iraq and Afghanistan, and several thousand troops remain overseas.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nat...tion-headlines

Uh oh, looks like someone else in the industry has pissed of the US Government.

Lets hope this doesnt go the way of Chris Wilson :eek:

Regards,

Lee

Dirk Yates has been using real military guys for many many years. Why is this news now?

Somebody must have a serious homo bug up their ass.

There are a couple of things I think got them all hot and bothered--mostly that these guys are active duty but also because the guys are from the rough-and-tumble Pride of the Army 82nd Airborne. Also, I think somebody must have tipped them off. Does anybody know if it was solo or was it gay action?? Sons of bitches. This just illuminates the need to get rid of Dont Ask Dont Tell. Most of the civilized nations have gay and lesbian soldiers serving side by side already. Hell, I served honorably and have my honorable discharge on the wall in my office. I hope this renews the debate over that stupid law.

It's activeduty.com (Dink Flamingo). Dink messaged me just a little while ago to say that he and the guys are holding up well in spite of the shit storm. He was in a good enough mood to say that he and the guys were hoping to get a Larry King appearance out of this. LOL.

Does he need a lawyer?? ;-)

:signhere:

ah man i love activeduty.com. those guys drive me crazy! are most of those guys gay? with you roughed up American boys, you can never tell

Well I'm getting an "error URL cannot be retrieved" on the site

I've always loved activeduty and have even subscribed to it myself and have heard nothing but good things bout "Dink"

If there's anything I can do to help you guys over at activeduty let me know

Cheers

Oh man, that has got to suck for the army guys. (no pun intended)

It sorta pisses me off that they get paid next to nothing to put their lives on the line, and when they get an opportunity to make a few extra bucks, they take it in the ass. (again, no pun intended)

If they were doing solo stuff, then there is no homosexual activity, I don't think the site has the problem, its the army guys that need someone to go to bat for em... Go Chad!

Man, when they say active duty them mean it. I really love the site and videos as well. I usually end up watching one of their videos when I visit aebn. The site shouldn't have any problems.

You know, this thing could become very interesting.

With the 2257 record keeping requirements, if someone can subpoena the records, for the purposes of ID'ing the army guys, would that be legal? Can a military entity subpoena civilian records for purposes of a military investigation or prosecution?

Could it then snowball and the military could subpoena every site's 2257 records in a fishing expedition to find other active duty personnel that have appeared on websites?

I think I would take the bullet and refuse to turn over the records, then fight it out in court whether or not they have the rights to the 2257 docs for any purpose other than to prove the persons were of legal age. I think there are some real privacy and first amendment issues at stake here.

If the DOJ appoints a military prosecutor as a "records investigator", then where does the line get drawn? Does it over-reach the intent of the 2257 regs and therefore become inadmissable in court?

I think Chad has a lot of work to do on this one!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MWCren

You know, this thing could become very interesting.

With the 2257 record keeping requirements, if someone can subpoena the records, for the purposes of ID'ing the army guys, would that be legal? Can a military entity subpoena civilian records for purposes of a military investigation or prosecution?

Could it then snowball and the military could subpoena every site's 2257 records in a fishing expedition to find other active duty personnel that have appeared on websites?

---

You've brought up another possible nightmare scenario with these 2257 record keeping issues. sigh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slade

You've brought up another possible nightmare scenario with these 2257 record keeping issues. sigh

---

Well the holder of the records would say ... to a court of conservative judges ... like say Judge Alitio.... that Congress intended the 2257 requirements for the purposes of age verification on file. Anything beyond that would be outside the relm of Congress's intention. therefore, the army can't come along and inspect them for their own reasons. that's how you would frame that to that kind of judge.

as another aside - i have always wodered if a potential constitutional challange to 2257 recordkeeping requirements is that it violates the privacy rights of the employee. A law that forces the broadcast of an individual's identity information would - i think - have a case in court. Especially now since legislatures are passing laws that make it a crime to disclose identity information to wrong parties.

I've always speculated about that.

Steve

what struck me as mildly amuzing was that the paper was oh-so-careful not to mention the url of the site involved.

most unfortunate for the site in question , but unfortunately this is the risk you run when you use uniforms and/or uniformed personel ( military/police/etc. ) who's agencies/departments/etc. have no desire to be "promoted" in an "adult-manner" .
hopefully the models will make it through this , good luck gentlemen! :)

sincerely ..."w*lmartsalesassociatesnude.com"... :goof:

Ok the site is up now but only members can enter. Great move to void cancellations and chargebacks! Wish I could promote them to help them out but it's members only now.

this thread also show a good reason to host one's site outside of the USA

i doubt that would help as long as the site owner was in the u.s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rhys

this thread also show a good reason to host one's site outside of the USA

---

It also wouldn't help the servicemen in question. It doesn't matter where a site is hosted. If you're in the U.S. Military and you're doing gay porn or posting your profile at a gay personals/hookup service, you're going to find yourself in hot water.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rhys

this thread also show a good reason to host one's site outside of the USA

---

The guy who was busted in Florida for having the porn site with dead Iraqis hosted in The Netherlands. Being outside the USA didn't help him at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MWCren

You know, this thing could become very interesting.

With the 2257 record keeping requirements, if someone can subpoena the records, for the purposes of ID'ing the army guys, would that be legal? Can a military entity subpoena civilian records for purposes of a military investigation or prosecution?


If the DOJ appoints a military prosecutor as a "records investigator", then where does the line get drawn? Does it over-reach the intent of the 2257 regs and therefore become inadmissable in court?

I think Chad has a lot of work to do on this one!

---

Actually, no. A subpeona would be issued after charges were filed alleging a crime had been committed, not before, or else for a grand jury investigation, which is just way over the top and not practical. Before charges are filed it would have to be a warrant, which would need to set out what evidence would be found, where it should be found, and what crime it would prove. A warrant that doesnt have enough detail, even if it does turn up real evidence, can easily be suppressed.
So, dont worry about fishing expeditions. Hell, there isnt even a single 2257 iinvestigator appointed yet so any records inspection would have to be done by Big Al himself, in person. He is too busy kissing King Georges ass to soil his Pradas in a porn producers office.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rhys

this thread also show a good reason to host one's site outside of the USA

---

Hosting outside the US will not protect any site with US ties--and US ties only need to include selling products or memberships to US customers. If you want to take advantage of the US market, then you subject yourself to US laws.
Best to do things upfront and by the book than to try skirt the issue with game-playing like moving servers, as in the now famous Wilson case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chadknowslaw

Hosting outside the US will not protect any site with US ties--and US ties only need to include selling products or memberships to US customers. If you want to take advantage of the US market, then you subject yourself to US laws.
Best to do things upfront and by the book than to try skirt the issue with game-playing like moving servers, as in the now famous Wilson case.

---

Hey Chad that link to "servers" takes us to a hosting company page.

Are you promoting the hosting company or is the link wrong, or is something else going on here?

Thanks for all the other info it's invaluable. Amazing the whole Wilson case, now active duty. Funny how our laws are here to "protect" us and our freedom of speech, and right to earn a living, yet in both of these cases their freedom of speech and right to earn a living are both hindered. Why is that? Seems like our constitution has watered down quite a bit.

If anyone knows how to get in touch with Dink, please PM me. I'd like to contact him to get a few quotes for a story on this matter.

Many thanx,
Ken