[Dimensio]

In order for nambla to not be prosecuted for their advocacy, there MUST be high ranking people as members who are protecting them.

Er, the problem is that NAMBLA's only "public" advocacy is for removal of age of consent laws (with various "reasons" supported by lots of BS and possibly some junk science to boot). Advocating the legalization of a currently illegal act is not itself illegal -- under what laws would they be prosecuted for their public position (their private actions are another matter)?

[Houmatt]

Er, the problem is that NAMBLA's only "public" advocacy is for removal of age of consent laws (with various "reasons" supported by lots of BS and possibly some junk science to boot). Advocating the legalization of a currently illegal act is not itself illegal -- under what laws would they be prosecuted for their public position (their private actions are another matter)?

You obviously have never been to their website, then. I know, having visited there in the past (I am not sure where it is now, though. It keeps disappearing and reappearing like a cockroach.), they had a manual available to its members on how to get close to, befriend, and molest a child, as well as how to get away with it. In fact, the existence of this manual is part of the plaintiff's case in Curley v. NAMBLA, a $100 million lawsuit pending in Massachusetts (You may have heard of this case; this is the one where the ACLU decided to defend NAMBLA pro bono.).

There should be no question, no doubt, NAMBLA is a criminal organization. So why isn't John Ashcroft investigating them under the RICO statutes at an absolute minimum?