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

Yes, precisely as we have been saying all along - due process and judicial review is taking place. A catastrophic error on the part of the lower court, or precisely the right action to take, in the interests of these kids. From what I have seen, and I can't know any more, there is ample evidence in place to affirm the lower court's ruling. But it is moving through the law of the land. As an anarchist, something you wouldn't embrace, but many do.

 

One girl was "MARRIED" at AGE TWELVE.

Should she be sent back to the breeding ranch ???

 

Seems like a catastrophic error on your part.

Seems gworld, the ACLU and I are redeemed, if only temporarily.

Your claims that I am an anarchist are false. If I was an anarchist I would not be arguing the rights of the FLDS members under the Constitution.

As so often, close but no cigar.

 

That's a good question. Who was she married to? Who married her? What role did her parents play? How does she feel about being married?

This is why I advised you not to argue with the law as your position. The law is fickle, and imposed irrationally at times. It can't be counted on to be consistent or moral.

 

You are redeemed - because one department of the state agrees with your position? So, the state is evil itself, but go to the state, depending on if they agree? Yep, consistency personified, as always.

Personally, I'd be glad as hell if all of this were untrue, and the families return to living their lives in peace; I'd bow in grief for the families having undergone such an unjust separation, and join with you and with Gworld in condemning this action. But everything I have seen, and again I have not read any more than is available to us all, leads me to conclude this was the proper action to take.

Anarchy - your profile, and your posts, dude.

 

No, I'll be redeemed because the only person in this thread besides myself and gworld, willing to engage the moral argument intelligently is Kaethy, and the rest of you solely existed on "the law" and how if the police do something, it must be right.

Which was totally ridiculous considering that many of you intentionally chose to disregard any law regarding due process or the rights of the innocent.

Childish name calling. The sad thing being, that you continue to call me an anarchist, when my own views aren't compatible with anarchy.

You must be really desperate to score points these days.

 

Uh, yeah. I wholeheartedly agree that Kaethy has engaged honorably. Afraid I can't agree that the rest of us solely existed "in the law...blah, blah, blah..."
You see, more or less on the line,

Add in, that apparently she was indoctrinated to this since childhood, and boys were cast out of the community to ensure healthy pickins', and, uhyep, I done have a problem as well.

Great response, as usual. Really slammed the door shut on the plethora of your views showing precisely otherwise.

You are boring. Though now that your true philosophy is outed, it explains a good deal.

 

If there were any readers of this thread, as you single handedly seem to have destroyed P&R with your incessant stalking, they would probably see the statist sucking up and self-superiority people posted with, thinking that they alone could wield the might of law, and such a sword might not be turned back on them.

Well with 6 weeks of unlawful incarceration and institutional abuse, the state should be able to make cases against all sorts of illegal wrong doings, now shouldn't it?

My true philosophy? LOL. Who do you think you are? Joe McCarthy?

You know what, call me whatever you want. Because I don't think anyone besides your small peanut gallery thinks much of what you have to say anyway.

 

I think you are confusing super shaker Reno the wiggly wombat, queen of the shaking moonbats with "government"...

Let's remember that this time around it is state and local authorities that are involved, not bumbling idiots from Washington... However, I'm sure someone somewhere has found a way to blame Bush for this.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24141460/

 

-etc.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/052508polygamists.3b50160.html

The lying's not the problem. That the lies are used to cover up systematic abuse, is.

 

One of the reasons I supported and support the effort by Texas authorities to investigate the actions of the FLDS is that it has been shown over 200 years that the American system of justice is incredibly respectful of an enormous volume of rights of all involved. It is one of a handful of such systems of justice around the world that offers enormous protections to all.

In the FLDS case, lets remember that Texas state police authorities had suspiceons of actions whereby adult males have been coercing young underage, non adult females into sex through a closed society. Individuals from the group (their fomer leader) were put in jail. State authorities from Utah and Arizona stated that the reason the group moved to Texas four years ago was because of continued investigations.

In light of this Texas authorities had every reason and right to investigate.

Texas authorities did nothing for 4 years. They were unable to unearth any actions of sexual abuse. A call claiming abuse was the act that spurred Texas police authorities to raid the compound. Texas authorities referenced the American constitution invoking the oft followed "probable cause" standard. This standard has evolved through time. It clearly gives the state (feds) or transferred to states, the right to act on behalf of society.

In its own right those are anything but the acts of tyranny as sited above by Guerilla. The Constitution balances the rights of the individual using the probable cause standard. The probable cause standard providing for actions by the state in this case, and others when using the standard is in direct disagreement with guerilla's comment which asserts that the rights of the individual should be always protected from abuse.

When using this standard....there is a legal assumption that there is no abuse as the action which precipitated the government action was indicative of something in violation of the protections of citizens of the state.

Abuse is a vague phrase. The law as developed over the ages balances both rights of the individual and the protections of the citizens of the state, while acknowledging both....and permits actions of investigation by the state when it is viewed that the "probable cause" standard has been met.

In light of the most recent actions by the Appellate Court in Texas, ordering a return of children to their parents, it is the grossest example of exaggeration to suggest anything similar to the Nazi's. One uses this term to inject fear into an argument. The US has been experiencing the fear argument from the Federal government for 8 years vis a vis the war in Iraq. Bush invoked the comparison of Nazi's less than two weeks ago in a speech in front of the Israeli Knesset. What did Israel do.....the exact opposite of what Bush said and initiated peace negotiations with Syria.

Invoking the Nazi's is grotesque. Jews going to gas chambers had no rights. They were targeted for death. The adults of the FLDS have a court system that works under a well developed system of balanced checks and protections. The Appellate Court ruled in favor of the various parents from FLDS.

If only Jews sent to gas chambers had those rights.

If I remember correctly, Guerilla you invoked your right to run a business that could exclude anyone from entering your business. It seems you favor Jim Crow laws, in so far as you can apply them to yourself. I don't see where you should be applying this to anyone else. You clearly don't support the evolution of the law which ultimately faced those laws, argued them, subjected them to long standing argument and ultimately decided that for the good of the society, such actions were against the law.

You yourself seem to support these old rulings insofar as you are concerned and couldn't care less about the development of a legal standard that ultimtately turned them around.

As far as treating blacks as slaves, I can only suggest that in your threads about presidents, your view is so different than that of the majority of history. Specifically you identified as your favorite Presidents those that took very few actions with regard to the betterment of the country at large and were the most laissez-faire. Specifically you removed Lincoln from your list of favorite Presidents. I would argue, that in view of the fact that his actions freed the slaves......you are the last person in this forum to bring up this point. It would seem that your views of favorite presidents would suggest that actions should never have occurred to free the slaves.

The difficulty that Texas authorities have faced is that the FLDS operates within a veil of secrecy. The suspicion is that it also operates within a veil of coercian, in which older males with the support of adult females support sex between adults and minor girls. Previous cases in other states have supported this suspicion.

The long history of dealing with complex cases in which a veil of secrecy exists is that ascertaining the truth is difficult and time consuming. None of the adult males stood up and shouted or exclaimed, "I had sex with a 12 year old." That doesn't mean it happened or didn't happen. It means that determining if it happened will take time and effort.

I suspect that since the case is relatively unique in this regard, Texas authorities will need time to ascertain the truth of these suspicions. They have resorted to DNA tests. The DNA test results take time to turn up results and have not been finalized as of yet.

The law has faced a great number of cases involving secrecy. They can take a long time to break through the secrecy to reveal results.

From my personal experience, I grew up in an area where the Mafia was prominant. I suspect the business owned by my late father and his late partner paid "protection money" to the mafia. It is a result of my trying to put little pieces of evidence together. There is no proof nor will there ever be proof of that little incident.

But the point about breaking the veil of secrecy is that the US government started to go after the Mafia in the 1920's. It is only in the last 2 decades that this large criminal group has been seriously marginalized. It took decades for the Federal and various state or local authorities to break through the veil of secrecy.

Without evidence those who are charged with crimes go free. The state has a right and an obligation in enforcing the law to go after those it suspects of breaking the law.

Those who are charged with crimes are provided with tremendously developed laws that protect their rights.

It is through a complicated process that justice moves forward.

It is because of these well developed protections that I stand in favor of Texas' actions. It is a system that is well developed, and strives to protect all. It isn't perfect. It is far better than a world of anarchy where there are no protections to the mass of folks.

The protections of young girls from rape, forced sex, or pedaphilia is seen as a significant right that deserves and merits extra efforts by the state.

The adults of the FLDS are being afforded extraordinary protections as the most recent Appellate court has demonstrated.

Its a well developed marvelous legal system. Too bad most of the world doesn't apply something like this.

 

The Texas Supreme Court upheld the appellate decision, saying Texas had no cause to warrant the childrens' removal. There will be some who celebrate this decision as the proper decision to make, and some who will mourn it as a gross and costly error. May these children find peace.

http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2008/may/080391.htm

It is important to note that the Court stressed that it is not vacating district court review of the FLDS issue, nor is it vacating the ability to provide "appropriate relief" to the children. It is also important to note the Court states such a review and relief is "as the mothers concede," and that the child welfare proceedings will very much continue.

In the face of:



(She was 12, apparently, and Jeffs was 50, at the time).

Dan Jessop's response:

http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700228723,00.html?pg=3

I am heartened attention has been brought to the conduct of this cult, respecting its children. As I understand it, the cult relocated to Texas, precisely because of its liberal laws, its relatively "hands off" approach to childrearing under questionable circumstances. From now on, however, the YFZ compound can never operate again without knowing its activities will be monitored. I call this a good thing.

 

Conflating the 400 people (who were illegally arrested) with Warren Jeffs is unnecessary. Jeffs should be punished for his crimes, not hundreds of innocent children.

I wanted to draw a couple of analogies to what conflating all of the FLDS people with Jeffs is like...

19 Hijackers attacked us on 9/11. They were mostly Saudi. For that, we have invaded Iraq, causing millions of refugees, and potentially a million dead, as well as unimaginable destruction.

During the 90s, Saddam Hussein was a really bad guy. To punish him, we levied Food for Oil, which starved 500,000 children under the age of 5 to death.

In 2008, the YFZ FLDS ranch in Texas was raided, with over 400 people taken into custody on a phone complaint of rape.

Months later, no charges have been made, the arrest tactics have been ruled inappropriate, if not illegal and the phone call has quietly disappeared from the case, as it had been revealed that it might have been fake. 3 months later, potentially hundreds of innocent children and young adults are still being help by the state.

Rape is wrong. Rounding up hundreds of citizens in mass arrests is another wrong. Two wrongs do not make a right.

 

Astoundingly inapposite analogies.

Conflating the terrorists with the call to mount the war in Iraq war was wrong.

However, to make it fit Guerilla's attempt at analogy, the YFZ action and the Terrorist/Iraq action would only be the same if Al-Qaeda's program ruled over Iraq in the same peremptory way that Jeffs's doctrine, under the authoritarian executorship of all his boys, rules over YFZ and FLDS.

It is the doctrine that sanctifies the criminal abuse that precisely makes the YFZ compound the issue that it is. Jeffs' doctrines rule the sect. He is, as the above Dan Jessop' and all others state, the "prophet" of their religion, and his dictates established, and oversee, all YFZ life.

My point in posting the Jeffs pic was not just to show how these middle-aged guys get their jollies - but to show, as Jessop's comment shows, that they do not believe this kind of abuse is a wrong. In fact, they do not believe this is abuse at all. This is precisely the danger to these kids. (Please also see the dissenting opinion below, in this respect). The girl was 12, for chrissakes, as was the other girl featured in the other "anniversary" photos with Jeffs. He was 50.

Now, I realized by posting this news about the Supreme Court decision that some would come out proclaiming a kind of glee, a "victory" on points on DP.

They entirely ignore, however, several extremely important things about this ruling, its other vitally significant prong.

The Court specifically states this decision to basically adopt a hands-off to the appellate decision does not stop the rightful proceedings and review of the Texas CPS with respect to the abuse taking place at the compound.

It is also important the Court specifically stated the mother's "conceding" the need for relief on the part of these kids. It is a concession to the State's emergency motion. "Concedes," in other words, admits, to the need for judicial relief on the part of these children.

Finally, this was not a decision made unanimously, and not made without significant reservations in place. The Court's dissenting opinion had this to say:

I believe the justice is spot on. These kids are in a helluva lot of danger, and this cult must, and will, be monitored closely from now on.

 

Which is another reason a government agency needs to be extra careful that they themselves do not break any laws or trample any rights.

Not only am I against trampling rights no matter how vile the perpetrator is as it can be extended to ALL down the road.

On the flip side, now the same agency will be thinking twice next time they try to help someone. The sect may also have a case of bias against them, there is much more to this than simply the kids might be in danger. It is so important that if the government does intervene they do it properly, to ensure both victim and perpetrators rights are not trampled, to also make sure their very own power is not diluted down the road..

 

I think this is a valid point, Grim. I know there was a decades-long "chilling effect" in place, respecting this cult, over a truly messed up decades-old raid/arrests: see "Short Creek" incident. And for this, I am concerned that now, as before, the cult will slink back into the shadows with the abuse continuing unfettered.

But to this action, the dissenting justice points up what has seemed to me all along - there is evidence of abuse, substantial, criminal abuse. The YFZ compound did everything possible to screw up any investigation into this, in the justice's words, demonstrably endangered population of pubescent girls."

Thankfully, to me, even in yesterday's Supreme Court decision it was ordered that due to the evidence of abuse, the matter isn't over, and it is eminently appropriate for CPS to continue its investigation - and execution of lawful instruments - with respect to the abuse at the heart of this matter. From my read of even the majority opinion, the issue isn't abuse, which the court mentions is conceded to by plaintiff/appellants. The issue is whether by the strict guidelines of the relevant statutes, the state proved its burden of proof to warrant removal.

The majority denied it, with a closely argued dissent affirming it.

The above notwithstanding, a nod for a good point, Grim.

 

I'm really torn on this issue... On one hand, it is clear by law and the courts decision that the authorities broke the law. But on the other hand, basically the message sent is, its really ok to fuck a 13 year old and get her pregnant...

At the end of the day, however, the lower courts CAN and probably WILL set strict conditions.

Though what goes on behind closed doors no one know.

 

Texas judge orders return of polygamists' children
SAN ANGELO, Texas - A judge on Monday ordered the return of more than 400 children taken from their parents at a polygamist group's ranch because of suspected abuse, bringing an abrupt end to one of the largest custody cases in U.S. history.

full text : http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080602/ap_on_re_us/polygamist_retreat

 

I bet the pedos on the ranch are happy as hell!