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

I don't tend to think in these terms, actually. I fail, sometimes, but it's generally my desire to hear people on the merits, and presume good faith on their part - until that good faith is proven false.

To my knowledge, no one has yet been charged. I don't know how many children have been abused, and how many were in the process of being abused. The group is being targeted, but not for the reasons you have stated, not over its religion; rather, over evidence of its systematic abuse of children, stemming from those in positions of authority over the children. Since it is systematic, by definition, it is very much the group and its practices that are being held to account. This happens quite routinely. For instance, a day care center, where evidence supports 60% of the kids have been abused under the stewardship of the center. The center's license is pulled, and the kids are removed from its care, pending review. Is this, also, wrong?

Yes.

 

So you agree that there was no concrete evidence of harm but it didn't stop the state from removing ALL children and place them in state care and expose them to the dangers of rape and death.
Where is the due process when your children can be taken away from you when you are not guilty of any crime?
Your example is totally irrelevant because a day care center is one legal entity while these are DIFFERENT individuals. Last time I checked, believing in the same religion doesn't remover your legal rights as individuals and make you to one legal entity. To make your example relevant, we must imagine that there are 10 day care centers in town, there is a problem in one day care with abuse, so the authorities decide to raid all 10 day cares, remove the children and revoke their licenses.

 

Apparently, no, I don't agree.

The same due process that allows a restraining order against an accused abuser, stalker, etc., while preliminaries, then trial, proceeds. That allows for an accused to be incarcerated, pending the outcome of the trial; both for the same reason: It's a judicial procedure to keep in abeyance further harm, when such harm is likely to have happened, and to happen further in the immediate future, based upon a reasonable evaluation of the preliminary evidence presented.

No, it doesn't. Unless your religion imposes a system of abuse that you, as a parent, or other person with stewardship over children, adhere to, in which case your right to your religion means squat. In your example, if those day care centers had in place protocols to abuse children, established by a "prophet" founder of the day care collective, then, yes, the same thing would obtain.

 

So in the end you consider them a group and want to punish them as a group. It is Obvious that you don't agree with ACLU

I believe they know more about civil liberties than you but you might think differently.

 

I thought I already covered this. I agree with their sentiments, but disagree with their conclusions drawn. As I do with your conclusions, respecting this case.

Could be. If this was the only criterion in society, guess we could all go home and allow the ACLU to do our work for us. I have said it before, but will say it again, that individual liberty to do what one would stops at the door of harming another.

 

Since we have already covered that you don't mind harming others including the children, it seems for you the individual liberty of others stops where you don't like it.

 

I've tried to explain, Gworld, that this kind of personal baiting is not something I will respond to any longer.

To recap: In the best of all worlds, all kids would remain with loving parents. When parents turn to abusers, both the children, and the parents, need help, and the wrenching decision to remove children from an abusive situation is not always the easiest, given the pain it causes them. But it is sometimes necessary. I conclude it is necessary in this case, from everything I've seen, for the reasons explained over the last several pages of this thread.

This is how I feel. We will have to agree to disagree.

 

FLDS elder decries 'terrorist acts' in letter to Bush

An elder of a polygamist sect has sent a letter to the White House decrying what he calls "terrorist acts" that have separated the sect's children from their parents.

The letter to President Bush is signed by Willie Jessop, an FLDS elder.
"Mr. President, it does not require a foreign country to commit terrorist acts on American soil," the letter says. "Terrorist acts can be committed by federal, local, and private entities that are operating under the guise of 'protecting the public.' "

"We are talking about homes being broken into without search warrants, unarmed fathers being forced to the ground with M16 rifles pointed at their heads, screaming children being torn from the arms of their grief-stricken mothers -- all upon American soil and within your own home state of Texas," the letter states.

The letter, dated May 10, says YFZ residents "submitted peacefully" when the April raid began. But the raid "quickly escalated into a systematic terrorization of every man, woman, and child, seemingly designed to provoke a confrontation justifying deadly force, as was used in Waco, Texas."
....
"Some of these children, who remain in state custody to this day, still have no legal representation. The legal professionals that were appointed to assist stood in shock and amazement at the gross violation of constitutional rights and due process.

"This is the most unprecedented 'kangaroo court' custody case in United States history, and judicial responsibility has been fumbled in a most outrageous way."

No criminal charges have been filed in the case. The next court hearing regarding custody of the sect children is scheduled for later this month

full text : http://edition.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/05/12/flds.letter/index.html

Will Bush do something ?

 

No, Nothing, Nada. They are not popular, so no political gain to give them sympathy and Bush is planning for Kangaroo courts in Guantanamo bay, so why should he mind it in Texas?

 

The sad thing is, there are people up-thread, who have reviled gworld and I for saying essentially the same thing as the ACLU and this letter.

 

this society has to a large degree determined that sexual abuse of children is one of the most vile of crimes. Much of that is written into law with slight differences state to state. Whether it is true or not....it is said that within prison walls existing criminals have the lowest regard for those that sexually abuse children. That speaks to the sense within this American society as to how vile the act is considered.

For four years Texas legal authorities suspected and made attempts to investigate the possibility of this group engaging in sanctioned sexual abuse of young girls by adults. Regardless of the claims of the group there was ample reason to suspect this. The group had left the Arizona/Utah border area because of pressure from state authorities in those 2 states for the same suspected crimes. Of interest, after decades of dealing with the intricacies of this situatlion, Utah and Arizona authorities had come to peace with polygamist groups who practised polygamy but didn't abuse children.

That in its own right shows an evolution and growth with regard to the law and a basic focus on the "seriousness of crimes".

Texas authorities waited 4 years before raiding the compound. What happened during those 4 years? Medical experts found that a large number of young girls between the ages of 13/14-17 had had sex or had been pregnant. Clearly during those 4 years more underage girls were forced by this group to have sex with elder men.

That is a direct and specific violation of laws. More specifically for any people that have any experience with the horrors of pedophilia it leaves a life long curse on the psyche of the violated young women.

Despite not acting for 4 years while conducting some sort of investigation, despite using the very guidelines and premises of the constitution in awaiting probable cause, despite the fact that the protections of the adults under the constitution resulted in more young girls being forcibly raped by adults, G and G continue to argue their case.

Many cases of many types that are ultimately adjudicated are argued under premises of conflicting legal theories and rights. It is the long history of the law. Some of those cases argue protections of the constitution versus claims of abuse.

Regardless of the claims of protections, most here find the horror of the alledged crime to far outweigh any protections of the individual. Society is empowered to protect the innocent. Who is more innocent than young children. The 4 year wait was ended by a claim of abuse. The protections against police action were clearly met by the probable cause standard. What kind of society would ignore that call or claim of abuse?

Frankly, G and G, you have made your case(s) and most in this thread disagree. Guerilla has already stated he sees nothing wrong with adult males having sex with very young girls. He already has affirmed that his views in this area are at extraordinary odds with the view of the society at large.

I don't know where GWorld stands on that issue, but I suspect he doesn't much care about the issue of pedophilia either.

I somehow suspect if either had the slightest concern for the welfare of kids they may think differently.

 

Oh, this is rich. Willie Jessops rights a PR letter, and the G boys hold hands and dance a circle dance of giddiness. Priceless.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=4684344&page=1

Brent Jeff's elsewhere:

Here, I'll give another Jessop, Carolyn, the first woman to have ever gotten full custody of her kids in a suit involving the FLDS. Here's her story:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/29/national/29polygamy.html

From this thread, more of Ms. Jessop's testimony:

Not really for the two lost G lads of this thread, since they're, well, hopeless, but good god, folks - Willie Jessop, now, as source? Greeeeeat research, fellas. Well done!

 

Who cares how many people disagree? Prior to 1964, many people thought blacks should use separate bathrooms and go to separate schools.

This is incorrect. I do not approve of it.

On the contrary, as posted above, I think I agree with most people, that I am not comfortable with young kids having sex with people significantly older than them.

I can't answer for gworld, but this thread isn't about pedophilia. IIRC, pedophilia is a mental condition, and has to do with sex with pre-pubescent children. AFAIK, this situation does not deal with pre-pubescent children.

I have concern for the welfare of the women who have had their children taken away, and are being told that they have been raped by their husbands.

I have concern for the children who are being told that they are rape babies, and that their father raped their mother.

I am concerned for the the innocent people out of those 400, who don't believe they are victims, don't believe they have been raped or have committed rape, and are being held by the authorities without due process.

After 1 month, there are still no victims discovered, or charges laid. Which makes it shameful that you would hide behind these kids, and claim they were raped or abused, when they themselves may not believe that. Absolutely disgusting and exploitative IMO.

 

In this case most here are stupid and dangerous to a democratic society. There is nothing that outweighs the protection of individual rights. Society, Constitution and laws have established those individual rights to protects everyone of us and without it there will be tyranny.
How will a society work with mob justice and where will we draw a line in what is horror crime or not? This guy allegedly beat up an old man and killed him. horror of the crime, let's hang him up. This guy was allegedly drunk and killed a child with his car. Horror of the crime, let's hang him up. This guy allegedly burned a house with a whole family in it. Horror of the crime, let's hang him up.

 

Nobody is talking about executing anyone, arresting anyone without cause or imprisoning anyone without a fair trial. What we are talking about, which you constantly, consistently and probably intentionally fail to understand, Is that where there are allegations and suspicion of systematic child abuse it needs to be investigated.

 

Investigated- That is a nice word for group punishment and group removal of children from the custody of their parents.
In couple of years when it comes out how many of these children get abused or killed in state foster care, I am sure you will say, but but we are innocent, we were just investigating.

 

And yet people have been imprisoned for a month without a trial, and without charges, it appears many could have been arrested without cause, particularly in light of the original caller now likely a crank caller with a fake story.

A free society respects every individual, even the guilty. We don't mass arrest, mass punish, or discriminate based on religious beliefs. That is backwards towards authoritarianism. It's the sort of state authority that empowered Hitler to round up the Jews under the guise of a mass conspiracy against the Reich.

You bet if there is any wrong doing, it needs to be exposed and stopped. But the rationale being presented in this thread by some, provides no safeguards or protection from every family from being rounded up on suspicion and having the child taken into state custody until they can determine innocence or guilt.

A question that a father might ask is, would I tolerate being treated like this based on a crank phone call? Would I submit myself, my wife and child to a month of incarceration, DNA testing and separation while the state "checks us out"?

Probably not.

But when it's a fringe religious group, then the standard changes. And changing that standard by the state, which has a monopoly on violence and law, is discrimination.

 

Accusations and suspiscions of systematic child abuse were present, This warrants and investigation, The investigation is being done in the same way any investigation would be done. Suspects are held, children are taken out of danger and searches are taking place. While they shouldn't be discriminated against because of their religion they should certainly not be granted a licence to rape children because of it either. Their religion doesn't entitle them to special treatment in cases where child rape is suspected.

While you are parroting rhetoric about your imagined threat from the state there are children experiencing a very real and very serious threat from the people who are supposed to be protecting them, their parents. Why is so little concern shown for the real victims and so much for their abusers?

The patten of argument coming from your corner seems to be circular. You first argue for the rights of these filthy pieces of shit, Then when your points are exposed as infantile, self serving and fatuous you decide to start arguing that perhaps, maybe, sex with underage girls should be allowed. Then when that line of argument is proven to be fatuous you go back to arguing for the rights of paedophiles against "the state".

For some reason you seem compelled to defend these people, against anything. Whether it be the defence of their actions or against the way they were treated, it's like you have some kind of affinity with them.

 

No one is proposing they be granted any exceptional licenses or privileges.

However, I'll ask you the same question I have asked of others. How long should they be held without charges? 1 month? 3 months? 6 months? Is there any limitation on the state to hold these people or does due process no longer apply?

What real victims? If there were real victims already determined, we would have charges. Could you please tell me who the victims are, and who victimized them?

Like Earl, you have confused this situation with pedophilia. Pedophilia is sex with pre-pubescent children. It is also an acknowledged mental disorder.

This is polygamy and disregard for age of consent laws.

My argument for sex with underage girls is based on the question, "what is underage"? Is it the UK law? The South Carolina law? the California law? Belgian law? You tell me who has the age of consent question right, and I'll buy it. Every other state allows rape then. Sound good?

On the contrary, I'm non-partisan. I would defend Muslims, Jews, Catholics, Protestants and Atheists equally. When we undermine the principle of law, we take a step backward in our social and moral evolution.

 

Different places have different limitations on the time a suspect can be held before charges have to be filed or they have to be released (or they can apply to a judge for an extention). I don't know what that limit is in Texas but it will be the same for everyone.

That isn't how it works and you know it. In every case charges aren't brought until all the evidence has been collected and evaluated. it's called building a case. They have children who are underage and have been pregnant, They are the victims. According to Texas law, They are victims of rape. Now a case has to be built to determine who is guilty of rape and evidence has to be collected to prove his guilt. The police can't make charges against someone based solely on the fact that there is a victim. They are in the process of determining who is guilty of each case of rape and they are collecting evidence to prove it.

I don't really know what this nonsense is trying to prove and suspect it's just a case of you trying to muddy the waters. some places have different laws to other places, Well no shit Sherlock. In Texas these girls are under aged and according to Texas law they were raped. End of story.

Try also defending children and you might get back some of the integrity you have sacrificed in this thread.