Texas Authorities Raid Polygamist Compound(400 kids taken from a polygamist compound)

I have spent close to 20 pages trying to defend the right of individuals against any over reach by government and despite your lies to get an emotional support from uninformed I did not argue sex with minors or freedom religion and my concern was due process in criminal investigation and how mass arrest, removal of children or punishment are wrong in a civilized society.
On the other hand your last 2 posts and your lack of concern for children even while you try to get yourself banned and pretend to be a martyr for their cause, clearly shows that you neither care about the principles involved or the safety of the children. Your avoidance of the points raised in post and avoiding the questions, only proves that in your own perverted mind, you can accept children get raped or killed with no problem as long as it does not clash with your ideas on how things should be or prove you wrong in an argument.
The star-telegram article that you posted is nothing but repeat of some law professor that without any argument or opposition to his line of thinking has written an article in support of government action. What a surprise, some one supports the government and you are not the only one. I think this kind of self serving "professors" are just a sign of moral decay in USA and as we all can remember it was not a long ago that some of these same "professors" were printing articles in defense of torture, secret prisons and indefinite imprisonment.
I am not a lawyer but I would only discuss one line of that article to show how many loopholes are in this story:

The call was about the one person abusing one girl, so obviously the search warrant should have been for the finding of the girl and arresting that person. What were authorities doing looking in to the papers, were they thinking that these 2 people were hiding between the pages? How did they determined that the pregnant girls were underage, do they have special kind of eyes that shows the age of a person and what is the difference between a pregnant teenage in this compound and teenager pregnant girls in any project in USA? Why despite all these "crimes", no one has been charged after more than 1 month?

As you can see that article is only convincing for people who were "convinced" to begin with.

Your second post is even more interesting since you quote the department of child protective service praising itself and basically saying that we are ok, forgot what happened before while I am interested in truth. I could not find any stats regarding the number of poisoning, rape and death of children for 2006 and 2007 and we are in the middle of 2008, can you try to find it, so we can see if there has been any real improvement or only on their web site.
I have found one interesting stats any way, the fatalities of children under their care and it seems they still have an impressive record in killing the children.

I ask you the same 2 simple question that I asked previously and let's see if you have the courage to answer it.

 

I agree with you on most of the points you have made, but still he (anthonycea) should have received infractions for their time served (i.e 1 month, 2 months etc.) rather than being banned permanently. Of course he would be hit through the "totting up" system but banning him permanently was wrong.

 

Answered numerous times already. I can't figure out if you keep asking me questions like this rhetorically, or because I haven't been clear enough.

This is highly subjective. It's a projection of your values. Honestly, I'm probably more conservative and prudish than you. But I was under the understanding that you thought kids shouldn't be having sex this young because they weren't ready emotionally, physically or both.

I've got bad news for you dear. Many kids have sex (underage), unless you lock them in a dungeon.

My point is that, children biologically start their sexual development at different times, and certainly not based upon state law.

What's your definition of an adult?

Actually, parents protect children. The law is reactionary. I doubt any serious criminal or deviant decides not to pursue something illegal because they are afraid of getting caught.

Which goes all of the way back to the beginning of my entre to the discussion. If the child can't give consent (to marry), then surely the parent can. Because I cannot understand how you can decide for my child if I (the parent) can't. And the government, is merely a manifestation of the collective will, excluding my own.

The root of our argument stems from the fact that you think that government is justified in any action, as long as it accomplishes a social agenda you agree with. I've become bogged down on rape, molestation whatever but only because I have tried to defend the notion that the government (nor you) are justified to take any action, to accomplish your agenda, no matter how noble you think it is.

It's a slippery slope and history has proven that slope leads to despotism.

 

You are wasting your time since all these people avoid any serious discussion. Their whole point is: we don't like this people and we think they are bad. We should get them. Government got them which is good and who cares how they did it.

On the other hand, I believe that the fullest protection of the law should be given to those that we hate and to those that are suspect of worst kind of crime to insure that we are punishing them for the right reason and their actual guilt and not because of personal prejudices.

 

Unfortunately, this appears to be the same conclusion I have come to. The "ends justifying the means" question has been asked numerous times, and no one will answer for or against.

That sounds reasonable. I doubt you will find many others agreeing though.

 

Know one is answering your "ends justifying the means" question because it is too broad, a yes or no question and is absolute. Does the ends always justify the means? Does the ends never justify the means? It is not a very good question. It may be part of your debating style. Sort of like suddenly announcing to me that I am only allowed to defend my viewpoint based on law or morality. I tell you it is based on both, then you play games refusing to answer any questions until I pick. Then I pick law, because it is illegal in Texas to have sex with 13 and 14 yr. old children. Then you use the argument that the law in Texas is irrelevant due to the fact that everyone in the world doesn't agree with every law. The wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round. I do agree with one thing, it is a waste of time.

 

Ok. Forget everything else and only answer one question:

Do you honestly believe that every one of these children including small children will be better off in a state care than being with their parents?

 

Why isn't it a good question? What is so difficult about replying,

"I think that sometimes the ends justifies the means, but not always".

Or something similar...

Well sure it is part of my debating style. I am a man who has been directly and indirectly accused of supporting rape in this thread. I'm trying to explain, that not only do I not have the perfect answer (which brings my accusers and opponents out of the shadows, because it is unlikely they do either) but that I am trying to resolve this in my mind and heart with a broader view.

I stand by the law/morality argument. The law and morality might hit a nexus on this subject, but it is unlikely that you endorse every single law. Not to mention the complete irrationality of laws like this anyway, where various jurisdictions see the problem differently, and while you are so casual to infer that I am a rape supporter, in South Carolina, I would be well within the law for replying with the answers that I did.

Does that make everyone who supports SC law a rape supporter?

It's just not rational or logical.

You may be upset I presented a choice, but I wasn't trying to tell you what to do. On the contrary, I was warning you before you answer that in order to be rationally consistent, I saw this as an either/or choice and attempted to explain why.

And I stand by that. You have no interest in debating it. No interest in explaining your position, and how you came to those conclusions. You can't admit to legal consistency, and you refuse to answer any questions on moral consistency.

Easier to infer that I support the rape of children than to admit that your morality might not be explainable. Or consistent. Or right.

To quote both of us, "whatever".

 

If you want even crazier laws, the age of consent in Japan is 13 but they can't drive before they are 20.
The average age for sexual encounter for female in USA is 15 and that doesn't even include oral sex than many teenagers don't consider it sex like Clinton. the reality is that many females, especially among blacks, Hispanics and poor community will start having sex at about 12 years old.
That is the reason that it makes me wonder why the government doesn't attack the projects where many girls will have a child at an age of 15-16.

Is this right or wrong? I think it is not a good idea for these girls have sex in such an early age but this is the REALITY of today's USA where every magazine and TV ad is about sex and many females define their self worth by the size of their breast.

 

I actually agree with Gworld for once

 

Finally ACLU takes a stand:

ACLU Statement On The Government's Actions Regarding The Yearning For Zion Ranch In Eldorado, Texas

Now, those who thought there was no ground for my concerns, can go back and compare my posts with ACLU position.

 

So reading that a couple times gworld, my impression is that the ACLU thinks that 40 year old men should have sex with 14 year old girls.

Is that the way you are reading it?

 

That must be it. From the name of the group "American Civil Liberties Union", you can see that they must be perverted. In today's America there is no place for such Anti-American, Socialistic, Anti-Christian ideas such as civil liberties.

 

The ACLU has taken this stand since the inception of this case. This isn't news.

I don't know that anyone here believes this is harmless, much less painless, to these children. Many of us, while deeply troubled by the pain this action will cause, are more troubled by the systematic abuse of these children, due entirely to the authoritarian regime in place at the YFZ ranch, from all that we can know (relying on the same news as everyone else is relying on).

Many of the concerns expressed by the ACLU here are legitimate. No one should be acting out of a prejudicial problem with someone's faith. On the other hand, no one's faith excuses criminal child abuse.

The ACLU takes lot of wrong positions. For instance, in Chicago, computer users are free to watch porn on the public computers, in full view of the public. Mind you, there are kids that use that same library. In the name of "civil liberty," the ACLU has taken up the mantle of defending user rights to watch porn - to include child porn - on library stations:

http://www.aclu.org/privacy/speech/15600prs20010119.html

Now, maybe it truly is just me, but it's just not cool with me that assholes - and I have seen them - are free to get their willies off by watching porn in a library, in full public view, with little kids bustling about, looking for the next issue of Spongebob Squarepants. As a parent, in order to protect my child, I have to forego going to the library. And we have - one library in particular, a particular asshole literally spends his 15 minutes on, viewing porn; he gets off, waits the allotted break period, gets on another, and he chooses the most open station - literally, a bank of three, square in the center of the room - to pursue his sickness. And does this the entire day.

It's wrong. It is a ridiculous twisting of "the right to free speech" - what Edmund Burke would have disparagingly called "metaphysical abstraction" - to believe the right to view porn in a room full of kids is groovy.

To this issue, I just don't get it. We have ample evidence suggesting the regime in place at FYS is nothing short of a chamber of horrors. I guess one either buys:

Or one rejects this as propaganda from a mad ex-wife, on a co-founder of this compound, and co-engineer of its regime. From what I have seen, I applaud this action, and will do so always.

 

This just in; take it for what one will:

http://www.journalgazette.net/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080509/NEWS03/805090332

 

And what is all these rants got to do with 2 simple principal mentioned in ACLU article:

all persons, including children, have the fundamental right to due process of law. Due process rights for both potential victims and parents accused of neglect or abuse must be respected, and the law must afford each family notice of and the opportunity to contest allegations related to custody in a timely manner.

State officials have an important obligation to protect children against abuse. However, such actions should not be indiscriminately targeted against a group as a whole – particularly when the group is perceived as being different or unusual. Actions should be based on concrete evidence of harm and not based upon prejudice against religious or other communities.

It is unbelievable that after 200 years, some people still have a hard time to understand and accept the Constitution, principals and the laws which are actually there to protect their rights.

 

I wasn't aware I was ranting. You also must have missed:

Due process, not targeting groups as a whole, particularly based on prejudice, etc. Need for concrete evidence. These are legitimate concerns. So is:

The ACLU has been right on many things, and wrong on many things, as I have shown.

 

And none of these legitimate concerns were addressed in the Texas case. The group was targeted based on their religious belief and people were punished without any concrete evidence of harm and without the right to due process. Despite all these problems, as you mentioned in your post, you applaud this action.

That is the difference between paying lip service to Constitution and principals involved and really defending it because you believe in it even when it is not a popular stand.

 

I would disagree with your conclusions. The group was not targeted for their religious beliefs, though this certainly seems to be a defense raised by the group's counsel; but precisely because of concrete evidence of harm, and a reasonable conclusion of immediate and further harm; and the judicial process being followed is precisely due process.

 

You really must think people are stupid and can't think?

How many of these people in this group have been charged with any crime?
How many of children in this over 400 children are abused?
How can group not be targeted when ALL their children are taken away from them?

Are you sure you know what the word "group" means?