TX has completely screwed up Polygomist Cult Investigation

[ChumpDumper]

He's going off on some weird tangents lately.

[Wild Cobra]

WC, CPS has gotten some grief here in Texas about
children that they have not taken away from abusive
families.

We have the same problems here in Oregon. It doesn't make it right to violate the cons ution though.

It is just as bad, maybe worse to remove children from loving families using unfounded allegation. Parents from years back were abusive at times with their children, especially by today's standards. I don't mean sexually, but discipline wise. I wont say it's right, but with your age I'm sure you've seen plenty. How many families would CPS have separated if they existed back then? Did those disciplined in a hard way turn out any worse than today's children with no discipline? I would say not.

Also, I really don't think you could call them taking children away from homes, when in all reality this is a cult, and
commune style living arrangement.

And by calling it a 'cult.' does it makes them people below the need of cons utional protection?

Without sufficient evidence, it is also possible that there is nothing bad going on. We don't need to agree with their lifestyle to demand they have cons utional protection.

Can anything be shown they have done something illegal? Don't throw the polygamy thing out there because they are community church weddings. Not ones recognized by the USA for how a marriage is recognized in US law.

CPS has been damned if they do and damned if they
don't. It may have been just easier to charge a few
men with bigamy and possibly sexual exploitation of a
minor than take the approach that they did.

Yes, that would have been a prefered way to do it. I'll bet they had no evidence there either. I didn't follow this story from the start, or this thread because I knew it could end up either way. Many times, there is a proper justification to remove children from their familes. This became a clear case that the government violated the cons ution.

Oregon has done terrible things to kids in the guise of protection. It's not until their actions were exposed that they straiten up a bit. They have some pretty broad power that they regularly abuse.

It is going to cost Texas a bundle, it is in reality a full
employment exercise for lawyers and they are going to
make a bundle for their efforts, especially those that are
already drawing up lawsuits to sue Texas for unlawful
acts. And the bad publicity Texas is getting, witness your
at ude, and others.

It appears to me from what I saw in the interviews that the people of the community just want their children back. I don't think they have the desire to go for a big lawsuit lake they can go for.

[Wild Cobra]

He's going off on some weird tangents lately.

I'm not the one pretending we have no cons utional protections.

[Wild Cobra]

I think it's funny that a law-and-order guy like Wild Cobra thinks that dictionary definitions of "child" should supplant the definitions of that term that exist in Texas law.

Webster's FTW!

I just try to use words correctly. Law may define things differently from state to state, and that causes problems. My state is guilty of such things as well. You can read the law and think you are legal in something until you read the definitions they use for common words. Modern dictionaries sometimes makes these changes as well. I am against such practices. Law at least, should use the words as intended. I will not argue the term pedophile for Texas may include children who have gone through puberty. It simply is not a good thing to misuse words in law. Once a girl becomes a young woman, the physical difference become the distinction between pedophilia and statutory rape.

Words mean things. When I heard the stories of pedophilia going on, I'm thinking these people are really screwed up. Worse than their view of religion. When I hear the word though, I'm thinking of young children. Not 16 year old girls who are of the age of consent with the parents consent.

The media needs to report the truth in clear concise ways that we all understand. Instead, they use words that are less proper, for impact over truth. That is one reason why I didn't jump right into this thread. I didn't have the time to seek the truth on a story that I knew could amount to sensationalism over truth.

[FromWayDowntown]

I just try to use words correctly. Law may define things differently from state to state, and that causes problems. My state is guilty of such things as well. You can read the law and think you are legal in something until you read the definitions they use for common words. Modern dictionaries sometimes makes these changes as well. I am against such practices. Law at least, should use the words as intended. I will not argue the term pedophile for Texas may include children who have gone through puberty. It simply is not a good thing to misuse words in law. Once a girl becomes a young woman, the physical difference become the distinction between pedophilia and statutory rape.

Words mean things. When I heard the stories of pedophilia going on, I'm thinking these people are really screwed up. Worse than their view of religion. When I hear the word though, I'm thinking of young children. Not 16 year old girls who are of the age of consent with the parents consent.

The media needs to report the truth in clear concise ways that we all understand. Instead, they use words that are less proper, for impact over truth. That is one reason why I didn't jump right into this thread. I didn't have the time to seek the truth on a story that I knew could amount to sensationalism over truth.

In Texas, there is no crime identified as pedophelia. Thus, nobody in the FLDS compound would be charged with pedophelia (though those individuals might arguably be called pedophiles in broader society).

There are crimes for sexual assault of a minor and/or molestation (of a minor) -- the operative bases for seeking removal of the children and termination of the parental rights in this case -- and the use of the term "minor" is the most significant word in that sentence. There is no doubt that sexual assault of a minor would encompass sexual assault upon anyone under the age of 18, which is consistent with dictionary definitions AND legal definitions.

That you chose to define the crime in a different way does not change the fact that in the state in question (and in just about every other state in the Union, I'm sure) it is clearly against the law for an adult (someone who is over the age of 18) to engage in sexual conduct with a person who is a minor (someone who is under the age of 18).

The questions concerning the propriety of CPS's actions in this case, however, have nothing to do with how the crime is defined and everything to do with the lack of evidence to support any allegations that such crimes were being committed.

[Wild Cobra]

In Texas, there is no crime identified as pedophelia. Thus, nobody in the FLDS compound would be charged with pedophelia (though those individuals might arguably be called pedophiles in broader society).

I think most states call it something else. As a medical condition, and accurately describing the condition and act, the line is at puberty.

There are crimes for sexual assault of a minor and/or molestation (of a minor) -- the operative bases for seeking removal of the children and termination of the parental rights in this case -- and the use of the term "minor" is the most significant word in that sentence. There is no doubt that sexual assault of a minor would encompass sexual assault upon anyone under the age of 18, which is consistent with dictionary definitions AND legal definitions.

You forget that the age of consent in Texas is 16 years old with parental consent. That changed from 14 in 2005. The news accounts of women now conceiving and giving birth at 14 are likely true. However, that happened when the legal age was 14. Where is the crime? Please explain that to me. I am at a loss to see any wrongdoing other than us imposing our view upon others.

That you chose to define the crime in a different way does not change the fact that in the state in question (and in just about every other state in the Union, I'm sure) it is clearly against the law for an adult (someone who is over the age of 18) to engage in sexual conduct with a person who is a minor (someone who is under the age of 18).

I try to check my facts before making incorrect statements. How about you? Again, the age of consent is 16 and was 14.

The questions concerning the propriety of CPS's actions in this case, however, have nothing to do with how the crime is defined and everything to do with the lack of evidence to support any allegations that such crimes were being committed.

Correct. Their actions were a form of fascism. Authoritarianism taken too far for a free society. They know the law and ignored it over their sense of right and wrong.

[Nbadan]

The sad parallels between the Texas polygamy raid and Guantanamo
By Dahlia Lithwick

For those of you who haven't been following the many legal twists and turns of the Texas polygamy story, today's news of a state appellate court ruling that child welfare officials impermissibly seized hundreds of children from a polygamist ranch over three days in April will be shocking. It seemed an open-and-shut case of child abuse, right? Young girls married to much older men, trapped on a compound, bearing babies. The question was not so much why the state removed 465 children from the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on April 3 but, rather, what the heck took them so long?

More recent reporting has shown that the legal apparatus intended to protect abused children in Texas was strained to the breaking point by what turned out to be one of the largest child welfare cases in American history. Earlier today, attorneys for Child Protective Services confirmed that 15 of the 31 "child" mothers placed in foster care were actually adults. One is 27. A 14-year-old removed as a child mother apparently has no children. The state had raided the ranch after a 16-year-old girl called an abuse hotline saying she had been beaten and raped by her 50-year-old husband, but that girl has not been found. And interim custody placements made parental visits difficult, if not impossible. Seized children were not even permitted to hear sect prophet Warren Jeffs' name. The original custody proceedings had been hasty, chaotic, and confused. And estimated court costs were being projected at $2.25 million (before lawyers' fees).

In other words, what was intended as a noble effort suddenly got mired down in tricky factual disputes, cultural and religious clashes, and the practical necessity of warehousing hundreds of human beings for an indefinite period of time. If this sounds a whole lot like the Bush administration's fruitless, costly, and ultimately cruel exercises in mass justice at Guantanamo Bay, that's because the parallels are hard to miss. In both cases, government actors hurled themselves at a problem with the best of intentions. The prospect of averting just one more terror attack, or protecting just one more molested child, has a way of making all those technical legal details seem trivial. But both cases have been plagued by glaring errors of fact and identification: Names and ages and associations were all jumbled up, hearsay and double hearsay piled up in place of real evidence. At the time, it probably seemed like all the who's and where's could eventually be sorted out later. But there were real costs to surging forward ahead of the legal niceties.

The most important parallel between the seizure of the 465 children from the Yearning for Zion Ranch and the warehousing of 775 alleged prisoners at Guantanamo Bay in 2002 is that legal processes are slow and careful and cautious—or, at least, they trend that way over the long haul. That makes them poorly suited to exigent situations in which the rights of hundreds of different individuals are at risk. It also makes them poorly suited for grand political gestures.

Slate

[boutons_]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/03/fld...ref=rss_latest

... or, how extremely incompetent, fat, untrained, trigger-happy chair-warmers with too-tight uniforms and fascist powers can terrorize citizens, and ask questions later (if ever). And this cult is all ... whiteys!

Will the cult now counter-attack in court and really stick TX with a huge legal bill and compensation?

So, under-age girls (and why not boys? Since when do men with absolute power NOT use it?) are still getting ed and Nancy Grace has months of mind-numbingly boring, repe ive material.

[Wild Cobra]

The sad parallels between the Texas polygamy raid and Guantanamo
By Dahlia Lithwick

Yep, good liberal propaganda.

How can anyone be taken serious that compares and unlawful raid to the detention of prisoners of war.

You liberals are really losing it.

Will the cult now counter-attack in court and really stick TX with a huge legal bill and compensation?

I don't think they will, but they should. I don't agree with polygamy, or marrying the young women off as soon as they are at the age of consent, but I have yet to see anything credible that anything illegal took place.

So, under-age girls (and why not boys?

I haven't heard of any cases of under aged girls, or boys. They were all of age. What facts do you have? Maybe you should have gone there to testify. I'm sure Children's Services would have treated you nicely to testify for them. Five star hotel and all. They are in serious need of redemption. I'm sure they would pay nicely for a star witness.

Since when do men with absolute power NOT use it

Maybe they do, maybe they don't.

I don't see this as anything more than the bigotry of the people who abused the government powers they hold. I see no evidence that the FLDS abused anyone. Again, what evidence other than propaganda do you have?

[ElNono]

I just find it hilarious that a Bush supporter is standing for privacy rights and strict law interpretation. This from the same folks that brought you Guantanamo Bay, the Military tribunals, NSA wiretaps, the CIA leak, the 'preemptive action' doctrine, etc.
But you know what, I'm with Cobra on this one. God forbid one day we find out how many of our civil liberties have been trampled in the name of 'protect the children'...

[Wild Cobra]

I just find it hilarious that a Bush supporter is standing for privacy rights and strict law interpretation. This from the same folks that brought you Guantanamo Bay, the Military tribunals, NSA wiretaps, the CIA leak, the 'preemptive action' doctrine, etc.

I respect president Bush, I agree with most his policies. I dislike the spending under him and his idea of 'comprehensive immigration reform.'

Why would a Bush supporter not stand for civil rights and law enforcement? Tribunals are authorized in the cons ution with congressional support. The NSA wiretaps are completely legal for the executive office to order without warrant. The fourth amendment protects from UNREASONABLE actions. There is nothing unreasonable to listen in on a conversation with a known terrorist. The CIA is a separate en y, and they have really ed up. There is nothing wrong with preemptive actions. It does get tricky however. This Iraq war has proved just how tricky it can get.

But you know what, I'm with Cobra on this one. God forbid one day we find out how many of our civil liberties have been trampled in the name of 'protect the children'...

Thank-You. I do consider the NSA wiretaps reasonable, but not the actions against the FLDS members.

This is really what needs to be discussed in cases like this. What is reasonable, unreasonable, and where do you draw a line in the huge gray area?

[ElNono]

I respect president Bush, I agree with most his policies. I dislike the spending under him and his idea of 'comprehensive immigration reform.'

Why would a Bush supporter not stand for civil rights and law enforcement? Tribunals are authorized in the cons ution with congressional support. The NSA wiretaps are completely legal for the executive office to order without warrant. The fourth amendment protects from UNREASONABLE actions. There is nothing unreasonable to listen in on a conversation with a known terrorist. The CIA is a separate en y, and they have really ed up. There is nothing wrong with preemptive actions. It does get tricky however. This Iraq war has proved just how tricky it can get.

The trick with the tribunals, is that the determination of who is an 'enemy combatant' is entirely at the discretion of an agency. I mean, if they could at least challenge in a federal court their status, including all the benefits of due process, and still be found 'enemy combatants', then I have no problem with the tribunals. But as it stands right now, somebody somewhere decides you're a bad guy, and tough luck. You're going in and you have no rights.
We discussed the NSA wiretaps extensively, and we obviously don't agree. But as long as congress doesn't grant immunity to the telcos, there's still hope that, once this guy leaves, a court will be able to actually rule on it's legality.
And as far as preemptive actions go, you could argue that what the state did in this case was a 'preemptive action'. Obviously, the whole doctrine wouldn't pass the justice test, so that really tells you how sound it is.

Thank-You. I do consider the NSA wiretaps reasonable, but not the actions against the FLDS members.

This is really what needs to be discussed in cases like this. What is reasonable, unreasonable, and where do you draw a line in the huge gray area?

I don't think it's that big of a gray area. Once you get to court, you either have evidence or you don't. Hearsay can't win a criminal case for you.
But like I said, I think a lot of politicians of both parties take advantage of the 'protect the children' mentality. They love to tack other crap on laws like this one, and since it's about the children, they pass uncontested. It's really sad how they game the system like that.

[Wild Cobra]

The trick with the tribunals, is that the determination of who is an 'enemy combatant' is entirely at the discretion of an agency. I mean, if they could at least challenge in a federal court their status, including all the benefits of due process, and still be found 'enemy combatants', then I have no problem with the tribunals. But as it stands right now, somebody somewhere decides you're a bad guy, and tough luck. You're going in and you have no rights.

The benefits we know of in our due process go beyond what the cons ution requires. These are not just people suspected of a crime. They were taken from the battlefield. All but a few. I think you can count on one hand those who were seized otherwise, and there is very good evidence.

We discussed the NSA wiretaps extensively, and we obviously don't agree. But as long as congress doesn't grant immunity to the telcos, there's still hope that, once this guy leaves, a court will be able to actually rule on it's legality.

Hope for what? To line the trial lawyers pockets? In the end, do you really think it would do anything other than cost businesses trying to do things right anything but time and money? What good would it serve? The government would just spend more money to accomplish the same thing.

And as far as preemptive actions go, you could argue that what the state did in this case was a 'preemptive action'. Obviously, the whole doctrine wouldn't pass the justice test, so that really tells you how sound it is.

That is a very poor comparison. Preemptive action against the FLDS was unwarranted, based on bigotry and peoples values who thought they were more important than to uphold the cons ution. Preemptive war is different. Waging war is a given function of the Commander in Chief's role, and also authorized by congress. Congress passed a bill some time back, and president Clinton signed it. A bill authorizing regime change in Iraq. The removal of Saddam Hussein. UN resolutions were being flagrantly violated. There were other reasons too. I would hardly call it preemptive, but then I'm a 11 year veteran too. Attacking Iran would be preemptive.

I don't think it's that big of a gray area. Once you get to court, you either have evidence or you don't. Hearsay can't win a criminal case for you.

Agreed. There was no evidence here. I say all officials involved should be jailed. They were looking for evidence to enforce their sense of morality. Take it one step farther, and they would have fabricated evidence.

Oh wait... It appears they did! Now how may other cases were improperly processed.

This case not only makes them look bad, but look at how many cases may be reopened!

But like I said, I think a lot of politicians of both parties take advantage of the 'protect the children' mentality. They love to tack other crap on laws like this one, and since it's about the children, they pass uncontested. It's really sad how they game the system like that.

This is where any reasonable person would challenge the enforcement. Officials are sworn to uphold the cons ution. Any of them knowingly violating other peoples rights should be dealt with harshly. We cannot allow the people involved the opportunity to violate our rights again.

[Nbadan]

Have a hankering to control the blossoming individuality of your children?

Get your today, cause tomorrow may be too late!

Believe the world is filled with the presence of Satan, and want to protect your little ones from his pernicious influence?

Or do you just like to see little girls swelter in head-to-toe pastel polyester?

Then you're in luck. Now the tubes offer one-stop shopping for all your kiddy kult apparel needs.

....

FLDS women for the first time are offering their handmade, distinctive style of children’s clothes to the public through the Web site fldsdress.com.

Launched initially to provide Texas authorities with clothing for FLDS children in custody, the online store now is aimed at helping their mothers earn a living.

Link

Note: Sorry ladies, styles are not available in red. That color is forbidden in any way, shape or form by the FLDS fundies...