FLDS abuse concerns include boys

[Trish]

There is now concern that boys in the sect may have been sexually abused as well. Additionally, there is concern that physical abuse may also have occurred.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5744632.html

[cronic]

Sad,
More and more tragedy continues to flow from this place

I'm not surprised either... it's a sicko world we live in.. everywhere.. not just in these places where illegal activity and child molestation is actually taught to, and witnessed first hand by children from there so called adult role models.

Yep, I'm not surprised but I am saddened by it!

[Buck Laser]

I wonder how the initial outrage from our libertarian friends will play out as evidence emerges that there was apparently wholesale abuse of youngsters there. Being free to worship your own way is OK until people who can't help themselves become the victims.

Or are the children "property?"

[Trish]

I wonder how the initial outrage from our libertarian friends will play out as evidence emerges that there was apparently wholesale abuse of youngsters there. Being free to worship your own way is OK until people who can't help themselves become the victims.

Or are the children "property?"

Considering that both the "wives" AND the children can be "taken" from a man who falls out of favor with church leadership and "given" to another man - I'd say both the children AND the women are property. That's one of the reasons they are having so much trouble identifying which children belong to which parents.

[Mia]

I was waiting for this part to emerge. Warren Jeff's nephew said that he and his half-brother were sodomized by Warren. I didn't think it was an isolated incident.

41 kids with broken bones, ex members telling about beating children with brooms, locking in closets, and depriving of food.

Oh yeah, they're just 'disgruntled'. *phhhhhtt*

[Mia]

I wonder how the initial outrage from our libertarian friends will play out as evidence emerges that there was apparently wholesale abuse of youngsters there. Being free to worship your own way is OK until people who can't help themselves become the victims.

Or are the children "property?"

I happen to fall alone Libertarian lines on most issues. I feel that some of my Libertarian friends here have just not taken the time to discover that the state action is protecting individual rights (women and/or children) not infringing unfairly on anyone's.

I hope so. I'd be saddened (and disgusted) to learn that Libertarians only care about rights for adult males. Or that of the adult female who is acting under duress from adult males.:ponder:

I'd have to go back to being a dem :scared:

[Osborn F. Enready]

Mia said:
I hope so. I'd be saddened (and disgusted) to learn that Libertarians only care about rights for adult males. Or that of the adult female who is acting under duress from adult males.

That is one of the most retarded statements I have ever seen regarding association to the Libertarian party mia......

[Truth_and_Power]

That is one of the most retarded statements I have ever seen regarding association to the Libertarian party mia......

Where do they get it from?? Just because libertarians don't want the government running every aspect of their lives doesn't mean they don't think child rapers should be prosecuted.

[Osborn F. Enready]

T&P said:
Where do they get it from??

Twisted perception and media regurgitation is all I can assume.....

[Buck Laser]

That is one of the most retarded statements I have ever seen regarding association to the Libertarian party mia......

Does this mean that you accept the idea that it may have been OK for the state to go into the "Yearning For Zion" ranch?

I'm thinking that it was a hard call, and whoever made it must have known that it could be controversial. It now seems to me that the person made the right call.

[Truth_and_Power]

Does this mean that you accept the idea that it may have been OK for the state to go into the "Yearning For Zion" ranch?

I'm thinking that it was a hard call, and whoever made it must have known that it could be controversial. It now seems to me that the person made the right call.

Assuming the courts decide the same thing the media has..

[Osborn F. Enready]

Buck said:
Does this mean that you accept the idea that it may have been OK for the state to go into the "Yearning For Zion" ranch?

I never once said the state shouldn't have taken action against PEOPLE THEY HAD EVIDENCE AGAINST...... I still don't think the state handled this right, I don't think it is right that so many kids were torn from their blood parents, and I think there are going to be a TON of countersuits, and I hope it bankrupts the state and teaches them a lesson about BLANKET IGNORANCE of individual rights regarding what they are calling "due process" in this case.

Buck said:
I'm thinking that it was a hard call, and whoever made it must have known that it could be controversial. It now seems to me that the person made the right call.

I think its being totally overdone, blown out of proportion and far too many are being directly affected by the actions of a few..... no suprise though, its becoming the status quo.....

[Mia]

Assuming the courts decide the same thing the media has..

SIGH, we have a lot more than just 'media' information. Good God, their prophet is in jail for this. We have many, many people from the inside to tell us how it works in there.

Oh, I give up.

Some people are determined that a spade isn't a spade and nothing can be done to change their minds.:shame:

[Buck Laser]

I never once said the state shouldn't have taken action against PEOPLE THEY HAD EVIDENCE AGAINST...... I still don't think the state handled this right, I don't think it is right that so many kids were torn from their blood parents, and I think there are going to be a TON of countersuits, and I hope it bankrupts the state and teaches them a lesson about BLANKET IGNORANCE of individual rights regarding what they are calling "due process" in this case.



I think its being totally overdone, blown out of proportion and far too many are being directly affected by the actions of a few..... no suprise though, its becoming the status quo.....
How about we let it play out before we judge it? Like most of the real dilemmas we encounter in real life, the options about what to do are hardly clear and precise. That's what makes life so messy, and why I so admire people who can muddle through life with some real accomplishments and without fucking up too much.

[Mia]

I think its being totally overdone, blown out of proportion and far too many are being directly affected by the actions of a few..... no suprise though, its becoming the status quo.....

How do you know whether it's only the actions of a few - do you have an inside scoop we don't?

[Truth_and_Power]

SIGH, we have a lot more than just 'media' information. Good God, their prophet is in jail for this. We have many, many people from the inside to tell us how it works in there.

Oh, I give up.

Some people are determined that a spade isn't a spade and nothing can be done to change their minds.:shame:

Personally I haven't read the testimony, all I know if a few soundbytes. Coming from a family that has been maligned in the press for things that didn't happen, I have a certain skepticism. I don't doubt that this incident is true, but I haven't seen the evidence.

[Mia]

.....

[Osborn F. Enready]

Mia said:
How do you know whether it's only the actions of a few - do you have an inside scoop we don't?

I don't, I believe in the concept of erring to the side of individual rights, as opposed to erring to the side of fascism and police statism.

I would rather see one guilty man go free, one more victim, than having HUNDREDS of people unlawfully seperated from their BLOOD RELATIVES on little to no evidence if they committed no crime.

[Trish]

I don't, I believe in the concept of erring to the side of individual rights, as opposed to erring to the side of fascism and police statism.

I would rather see one guilty man go free, one more victim, than having HUNDREDS of people unlawfully seperated from their BLOOD RELATIVES on little to no evidence if they committed no crime.

What do you believe when the rights of one person or one group of people is at odds with the rights of another person or group of people? I agree with you in most instances. I too believe that it is better for 100 guilty people to go free than one innocent person be convicted. However, these are children we're dealing with. In the best of cases the rights of children are precarious. Society still often treats children as property. In most instances parents are concerned, loving and responsible people. But in others they aren't. When children are involved, and there is an allegation of abuse, I believe the rights of the children come first. They are helpless to help themselves in the overwhelming majority of abuse cases, especially those instances where a child has been conditioned to think the abuse is "normal." When there is an allegation of abuse, I believe we have the responsibility to act quickly to protect that child or children from the possibility of further abuse. That means that we determine if the allegation has possible merit and we remove the child quickly and then investigate. The media reports on children who have died because authorities did not act quickly enough, or ignored allegations of abuse until it was too late. That is unacceptable to me. The minute the authorities walked onto the compound property and saw all those pregnant teenagers the evidence was there that something wasn't right and needed to be investigated.

The "rights" of the adults involved take a backseat to the rights of those children - the innocents.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Trish said:
What do you believe when the rights of one person or one group of people is at odds with the rights of another person or group of people? I agree with you in most instances. I too believe that it is better for 100 guilty people to go free than one innocent person be convicted. However, these are children we're dealing with.

Yes, they are children, who ALREADY legally have limited rights, and as a society, 99% of the time we are preaching "family values" and the importance of GOOD PARENTS and keeping famillies together........except, in cases like this where the hypocrisy runs rampant and the fearmongering over some form of "cult" that doesn't fit the traditional icon of American society is demonized, much like Waco, much like Ruby Ridge.

Anytime the state steps in to deal with a "cult" of anything, I am automatically suspicious, since words like "cult" are only used to marginalize and demonize groups of people in the process of the state taking their rights away unjustly, in most cases.

Many think conspiracy theorists are "cults" also.... how long until the state rounds them up and breaks up their famillies on similarly fabricated flimsy evidence?

Trish said:
In the best of cases the rights of children are precarious. Society still often treats children as property. In most instances parents are concerned, loving and responsible people. But in others they aren't.

No doubt, but in those cases, there should be an abundance of evidence or SWORN TESTIMONY by IDENTIFIED INDIVIDUALS to base an intrusion into peoples lives and property rights. That wasn't the case here.

Trish said:
When children are involved, and there is an allegation of abuse, I believe the rights of the children come first.

I don't, unless there is MORE than an anonymous allegation, instead demanding evidence or sworn and verifiable testimony.

Trish said:
They are helpless to help themselves in the overwhelming majority of abuse cases, especially those instances where a child has been conditioned to think the abuse is "normal."

You are really toying with "appeal to emotion" here Trish.

Yes, there are cases such as you describe, and I am all for punishing people who violate the rights of adults OR CHILDREN, but the government MUST satisfy the requirement for EVIDENCE to infringe on the rights of individuals, regardless of the claim they are making for protecting rights, to remove, infringe or abuse rights of others.

Trish said:
When there is an allegation of abuse, I believe we have the responsibility to act quickly to protect that child or children from the possibility of further abuse. That means that we determine if the allegation has possible merit and we remove the child quickly and then investigate.

I agree. I fail to see merit in this case for seperating this many people from their kids.

Trish said:
The media reports on children who have died because authorities did not act quickly enough, or ignored allegations of abuse until it was too late. That is unacceptable to me.

Violation of rights on appeal to emotion or false allegations is unacceptable to me.

Trish said:
The minute the authorities walked onto the compound property and saw all those pregnant teenagers the evidence was there that something wasn't right and needed to be investigated.

No doubt... those who they had EVIDENCE AGAINST they should have taken action immdiately. As for the rest.... well, that is why I am arguing here.

Trish said:
The "rights" of the adults involved take a backseat to the rights of those children - the innocents.

I am all for protecting children Trish.... but I don't consider seperating kids from their blood parents to put them in state custody "protection" unless the state has SOLID EVIDENCE TO BASE THAT SEPERATION ON, which I alledge WAS NOT MET IN THIS CASE FOR ALL INVOLVED.

[Mia]

I don't, I believe in the concept of erring to the side of individual rights, as opposed to erring to the side of fascism and police statism.

I would rather see one guilty man go free, one more victim, than having HUNDREDS of people unlawfully seperated from their BLOOD RELATIVES on little to no evidence if they committed no crime.

You keep referring to prosecution - who has even been charged? NO ONE, what are you talking about?

CPS errs on the side of caution when protecting the rights of children, what part of that do you not *get*?

It is a CPS operation right now. Don't worry, when they get to prosecution, most of these slime buckets will escape it.

Don't worry, many of these kids will go back to being abused per their 'parents' rights'.

This group has mastered evading thus far, I am sure they will get away with more than I want them to even in the TX case.

++++++I know that you know that protecting rights of some involves curtailing rights of others.

My right to hit you for what you're sying in here is curtailed by your right not to be assaulted.

My right not to hear what you say is curtailed by your right to say it.

The parents' rights are curtailed by the rights of these kids. Period.

They have not been taken away *yet*, and won't be without due process, which their highly paid attorneys are making sure they get.

Temporary removal is the only way to conduct the investigation, and to make sure the kids are removed from imminent danger.

Would you be happier if 10 more girls are raped while they try to get evidence some other way? And what other way is there?

This is exactly how every other CPS case is handled, for some reason you want these people to have more rights than you or I, why is that?

[Osborn F. Enready]

Mia said:
They have not been taken away *yet*, and won't be without due process, which their highly paid attorneys are making sure they get.

Last I heard Mia, the children were forcibly seperated from their parents, and being held by the state in foster homes or other suitable facilities.

Forcibly seperating people while you "build a case" from thin air, is not due process.
Being held by the state is being held by the state.
Ripping a child from the arms of a parent is ripping a child from the arms of parent, unless evidence EXISTS IN THE HANDS OF THE INVESTIGATORS BEFORE HAND, to justify that seperation and make a case by looking for MORE information.

The case made to get entry was BS.
The case made to seperate the kids in my view appears to be BS, and a "blanket approach".

You can condone it, I don't.

That is about as far as I will go on this with you Mia.

Mia said:
Temporary removal is the only way to conduct the investigation, and to make sure the kids are removed from imminent danger.

Terrorists, armed criminals with a reputation to use lethal force are usually things referred to as posing an "imminent danger". The parents of these children are not from what I can see posing an IMMINENT danger to their life. I have not seen any children there beaten or abused to the point of life threatening yet, have you?

Yes, there are CHARGES made about improper contact between adults and children, but I don't think the accusations made justify BLANKET REMOVAL AND PHYSICAL SEPERATION of all on the "property".

Yes, I consider RAPE a violation of rights, as I do consider any improper/inhumane treatment or violence against a child a violation of rights, but that does not give a blanket immunity to any law enforcement entity to at will violate the rights of adults who have charge over their children by law, when the state has NO PROOF of THEM comitting crimes, or any VERIFIED TESTIMONY from those they THINK are being abused.

I think all people are entitled to these rights, not any one individual or specific group.

I know if some group, or law enforcement agency had tried to do this to me at that age, I may never have forgiven my parents if they didn't resist.

[Mia]

while you "build a case" from thin air, is not due process.

You totally lost me here. It's not out of thin air.

I have not seen any children there beaten or abused to the point of life threatening yet, have you?

That's not the standard.

Os, you have repeatedly admitted that you have not looked at the facts in existence, so I really find discussing this with you to be moot. It also irritates me on a personal level that you would stoop to debating from bias, and refuse to have the slightest bit of a open mind to information on such a very important topic.

This will be my last reply to you on this subject.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Fair enough Mia, I like you, I don't want us to be mad at each other.

I am fine leaving with agreeing to disagree.