Posted on 05/04/2008 8:24:40 AM PDT by greyfoxx39
The FLDS argument will not hold up
By MARCI HAMILTON
When Texas authorities entered the Yearning for Zion (YFZ) Ranch, one of the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints (FLDS) compounds, on April 3, they did so using a warrant based on calls from a person who alleged that she was an underage girl being subjected to physical and sexual abuse, including rape, at the ranch.
Once the authorities entered, they discovered pregnant underage girls, girls with more than one child, papers indicating that rampant polygamy was occurring at YFZ, and even a document involving cyanide poisoning. The authorities then intelligently decided to remove all of the children from a situation that posed obvious and serious danger to them.
Lawyers for the FLDS members have been arguing in the press that the entry and removal of the children constituted a "massive" violation of due process. Others have argued that the authorities' actions represent the unfair targeting of one religion.
Each of these arguments is singularly misguided.
The due-process argument
Whether or not the caller was legitimate, the important point is the lack of any government misconduct and the serious evidence of crimes to children.
There are now allegations that the calls to the authorities spurring the raid were placed by a woman who was not within the YFZ compound. Even if proven, however, this claim would not affect the validity of the authorities' actions.
Absent clear evidence that the state fabricated the call or misled the judge who granted the initial search warrant, neither of which seems remotely plausible, the entry cannot be faulted on constitutional grounds. Once the authorities were inside, the evidence of criminal behavior was so plainly apparent that further investigation was more than warranted.
No self-respecting child protective agency could have departed from that compound without taking all of the children away. The authorities revealed last week that 31 out of the 53 underage YFZ girls have been pregnant and/or are pregnant. Imminent risk of harm -- the legal standard that bound the authorities -- was apparent; indeed, a decision to leave the children in that setting would have opened up the state to liability.
The key point here is that children were being abused and were very likely to be abused in the future. And, worse, this was occurring in an atmosphere in which the adults seemed incapable of apprehending the depth of the criminal behavior in question.
It is just as though the state had entered a drug den on the basis of reports about one child's abuse and discovered a bevy of children in a position likely to lead to neglect and mistreatment. In such a hypothetical, surely no one would contest the appropriateness of removing the children. The religious cloak does not forestall the proper operation of the child protective authorities. More at Link
I provided you with a link. All the info is there. But you are ignoring or forgetting that we have gone through all of this before. You argue the "For The Children" excuse and I present as many facts as are available. If you want to re-read my facts and your excuses the link is right there. Go for it.
The phone call was on the third.
You sure have a high opinion of yourself. I am not spending a significant portion of my valuable time weeding through your posts. I’ll take the opinion of the internationally recognized expert on constitutional law over yours any day.
It is necessary to protect our citizens and that's what the state of Texas is doing for those women and children.
This action against this cult should have happened when their exalted leader Warren Jeffs was convicted on rape related charges.
This was way overdo and children in the meantime have been sexually assaulted as evidenced by the number of teen pregnancies. found at the ranch. If the authorities had acted sooner, some of those girls would never have been raped.
Thanks.
L
Only an FLDS sympathizer would divert scrutiny from the FLDS by suggesting a more appropriate "inner-city" investigative target, code word for black. Shameful.
All hale the State. The State is King. ANd of course, the State can do no wrong.
Only an FLDS sympathizer would disparage the government for conducting the FLDS raid yet advocate a government raid on the "inner-city", code word for black. Shameful.
As is what you have to say, unless you can EVER come up with a source for your comments. Why should we trust what you have to say on the issue for that matter? What gives you any more credibility than anyone else?
They have found no one named Sarah Jessop Barlow and Dale Barlow hadn’t been in Texas since 1977.
Sources? How do you know that for sure? Do you know them? Have they told you?
Looks like you got an answer to your question.
That does not address my question to you.
Did you come up with a link to verify your opinion? Please source your statement with a live link.
Your demanding sources to rebuttals of your OPINION statements should be met with sources of your own.
Believe it or not that has never been a completely settled question even in the US and western culture. Arranged marriages have always been with us just less so now. Women have more options now or so it appears but once and maybe even now there are times there is a choice between marriage for betterment of station versus probably squalor.
I don't believe that was the case here (or maybe just in their little closed off micro culture) but it has been historically even in the US for many women.
Where are the live link sources to YOUR "firsthand evidence" leading to your hyperbolic rantings of the tryannical government's effect on the poor, abused cultist males that run this criminal enterprise?
You should know.
So expose it with links to articles verifying your claims.
No, don’t let anyone put words in your mouth, just explain why and when you believe child rape is permitted by the Constitution?
This is pretty simple: cite the article of the Constitution that you believe gives you the right to rape children?
Otherwise, all you’ve done is criticize some other freepers with vague and poorly-crafted sarcasm. When that doesn’t work, you take your ball and run home. Be a grown-up; if you want to make an argument, make it.
WHAT informant are you talking about?
Link to your source, please.
Yes, you're correct. Never had to use their services and hope to continue that record.
Yes, you’re correct. I’ve never had to avail myself of their services and hope to continue that record.
We haven’t either.
We lived in a welfare community for 18 long years and saw lots of how social services worked involving our neighbors and in NYS at that.
What happened at the ranch is really not much different that they way the operate the rest of the time, except that I never heard of them going in with a search warrant. Far as I know they just knock and intimidate their way in.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.