Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 39

Thread: ACLU Concerned about Children's rights in Polygamy Case

  1. #1

    ACLU Concerned about Children's rights in Polygamy Case

    "As this situation continues to unfold, we are concerned that the constitutional rights that all Americans rely upon and cherish -- that we are secure in our homes, that we may worship as we please and hold our places of worship sacred, and that we may be with our children absent evidence of imminent danger -- have been threatened," -Terri Burke, executive director of the ACLU of Texas


    [URL="http://us.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/20/polygamy.sect/index.html"]http://us.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/20/polygamy.sect/index.html[/URL]


    Imagine if the ACLU cared about those children's rights when they were being molested.

  2. #2
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,955
    And that is one of my main issues with the ACLU.....

    Put simply, they care more about the rights of the ABUSERS, than they do about the rights of the Children BEING ABUSED.

    This isn't a "one right" issue. And as I have come to expect, the ACLU has fallen on the wrong side yet again. Instead of ensuring that innocent children are not exploited and abused, they want to ensure that a fundamentalist cult has the right to "pracitice their faith" as they see fit, i.e. trampling the rights of children.

    No wonder Libertarians sometimes get a bad name, since many think the ACLU stands for many of the same principles.

  3. #3
    You are all supposed to be conservatives, and you sit here supporting a swat-style raid on a private compound. Isn't that too much government?

    or is it that you only approve of big government when it fits your agenda of the moment.

    what everyone is missing in this whole ordeal is what happened at Short Creek.

    The government can't tell people how to worship, period, end of story.

    The child abuse angle is not new but it doesn't really matter if the religion doesn't define it as such and if no one is pressing charges.

    These children can go to protective services and the men to jail - but eventually - after years of lawsuits they will all go back to the ranch. Mark my words these sects have a right to exist, that's what America is about.

  4. #4
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,955
    [QUOTE=bitonti;2492275]The child abuse angle...doesn't really matter[/QUOTE]

    Your words speak for themselves Bit.

  5. #5
    This case is nuts. You don't go taking hundreds of children from their parents on something as flimsy as a prank phone call. Totally ridiculous. And this in Texas, of all places, you think they'd have learned something from Waco.

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,759
    [QUOTE=sackdance;2492286]This case is nuts. You don't go taking hundreds of children from their parents on something as flimsy as a prank phone call. Totally ridiculous. And this in Texas, of all places, you think they'd have learned something from Waco.[/QUOTE]

    I totally agree with you.

  7. #7
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,955
    [QUOTE=sackdance;2492286]This case is nuts. You don't go taking hundreds of children from their parents on something as flimsy as a prank phone call. Totally ridiculous. And this in Texas, of all places, you think they'd have learned something from Waco.[/QUOTE]

    Forgive me, but what source are you citing that says "the only evidence" the authorities had was a prank phone call?

  8. #8
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2492282]Your words speak for themselves Bit.[/QUOTE]

    I had 2 ifs in that statement, that's taking a statement out of context

  9. #9
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2492325]Forgive me, but what source are you citing that says "the only evidence" the authorities had was a prank phone call?[/QUOTE]
    The health department can walk into [I]any[/I] NYC restaurant on [I]any[/I] given day and find sufficient violations to close the place down. This doesn't mean they should. (and I'm not comparing dirty countertops to raping innocent children - but making a point, instead, about jurisprudence)

    If authorities want to take hundreds of children from their parents, they better have their ducks in a row. Prank calls and subjecting normal folk (well, as normal as cult/sect members in the rural south can be) to silly and humiliating interviews (that amount to public condemnation through the media and little else) shouldn't reassure anyone that justice is being served down there.

  10. #10
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,955
    [QUOTE=sackdance;2492373]The health department can walk into [I]any[/I] NYC restaurant on [I]any[/I] given day and find sufficient violations to close the place down. This doesn't mean they should. (and I'm not comparing dirty countertops to raping innocent children - but making a point, instead, about jurisprudence)

    If authorities want to take hundreds of children from their parents, they better have their ducks in a row. Prank calls and subjecting normal folk (well, as normal as cult/sect members in the rural south can be) to silly and humiliating interviews (that amount to public condemnation through the media and little else) shouldn't reassure anyone that justice is being served down there.[/QUOTE]

    With respect Sack, thats not what I asked. You stated their only evidence for the raid was a "prank call". That is not something I have heard (honestly, I havn't heard WHAT their specific evidence was in this case before the raid).

    I'm just trying to find who or what is making that claim.

    Clearly, if that is the case (No evidence of wrongdoing whatsoever other than a anon. phone call), it would not warrant a raid like this. However, I would have to assume they had more evidence than that to get the permission to do a raid such as this.

    In principle, I agree with Bit and others and the "Freedom of Religion" aspect.....but as I always say, the freedom and rights of one (the parent) ends at the beginning of the freedoms and rights of others (in this case, the children). If the parants were breaking the law in respect to treatment of these children (which seesm to be the case) then stopping that is rightious. I would hope the authorities would have their eveidenciary ducks in a row as well before raiding, to ensure the rights-violating parents would face justice, and not a mistrial.

  11. #11
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2492421]
    In principle, I agree with Bit and others and the "Freedom of Religion" aspect.....but as I always say, the freedom and rights of one (the parent) ends at the beginning of the freedoms and rights of others (in this case, the children). If the parants were breaking the law in respect to treatment of these children (which seesm to be the case) then stopping that is rightious. I would hope the authorities would have their eveidenciary ducks in a row as well before raiding, to ensure the rights-violating parents would face justice, and not a mistrial.[/QUOTE]

    I also agree the law has to be respected but should the government destroy communities like this? And if so who's responsibility is it to replace these support systems? Taking hundreds of kids and putting them in the Texas child services system isn't necessarily a good development for anyone.

  12. #12
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,955
    [QUOTE=bitonti;2492446]I also agree the law has to be respected but should the government destroy communities like this?[/quote]

    If the children are being institutionally abused? Yes, they should.

    You know Bit, I seem to recall a whole lot of complaint from you re: Catholic Priests and abuse in the past. It seems to me that you have a double standard here.

    [quote]And if so who's responsibility is it to replace these support systems? Taking hundreds of kids and putting them in the Texas child services system isn't necessarily a good development for anyone.[/QUOTE]

    Better than being ass-raped by a 60 year old "church elder", wouldn't you say? After all, I would think a left-leaner such as yourself would find the support systems we have in place to be good. If they're not good (i.e. equal to being ass-raped), why do we have them at all?

  13. #13
    [QUOTE=bitonti;2492275]You are all supposed to be conservatives, and you sit here supporting a swat-style raid on a private compound. Isn't that too much government?

    or is it that you only approve of big government when it fits your agenda of the moment.

    what everyone is missing in this whole ordeal is what happened at Short Creek.

    The government can't tell people how to worship, period, end of story.

    The child abuse angle is not new but it doesn't really matter if the religion doesn't define it as such and if no one is pressing charges.

    These children can go to protective services and the men to jail - but eventually - after years of lawsuits they will all go back to the ranch. Mark my words these sects have a right to exist, that's what America is about.[/QUOTE]

    The Government is neither establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise. What the Government is doing is prohibiting the abuse of children. Excercising religion is about belief and action. When action steps over the boundry of other peoples civil rights or liberty it is no longer freely exercising which alway pertains to faith but cannot always pertain to action when that action impacts other people. In this case those other people are children that society has a right if not an obligation to protect.

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2492421] You stated their only evidence for the raid was a "prank call". That is not something I have heard (honestly, I havn't heard WHAT their specific evidence was in this case before the raid).

    I'm just trying to find who or what is making that claim.

    QUOTE]


    I think he may be referring to this-




    Colorado woman is 'person of interest' in polygamist case
    (CNN) -- A Colorado woman is being pursued as a "person of interest" in connection with phone calls that triggered the raid of a Texas polygamist ranch, authorities said Friday.


    Rozita Swinton, 33, has been arrested in a case that is not directly related to the Texas raid.

    Texas Rangers are seeking Rozita Swinton of Colorado Springs, Colorado, "regarding telephone calls placed to a crisis center hot line in San Angelo, Texas, in late March 2008," the Rangers said in a written statement.

    The raid of the YFZ (Yearning for Zion) Ranch in Eldorado, Texas, came after a caller -- who identified herself as a 16-year-old girl -- said she had been physically and sexually abused by an adult man with whom she was forced into a "spiritual marriage."

    The release said a search of Swinton's home in Colorado uncovered evidence that possibly links her to phone calls made about the ranch, run by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

    "The possibility exists that Rozita Swinton, who has nothing to do with the FLDS church, may have been a woman who made calls and pretended she was the 16-year-old girl named Sarah," CNN's Gary Tuchman reported.

    Swinton, 33, has been charged in Colorado with false reporting to authorities and is in police custody. Police said that arrest was not directly related to the Texas case.

  15. #15
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2492223]And that is one of my main issues with the ACLU.....

    Put simply, they care more about the rights of the ABUSERS, than they do about the rights of the Children BEING ABUSED.

    This isn't a "one right" issue. And as I have come to expect, the ACLU has fallen on the wrong side yet again. Instead of ensuring that innocent children are not exploited and abused, they want to ensure that a fundamentalist cult has the right to "pracitice their faith" as they see fit, i.e. trampling the rights of children.

    No wonder Libertarians sometimes get a bad name, since many think the ACLU stands for many of the same principles.[/QUOTE]


    ehh..I think the ACLU gets itself on the wrong side of issues because it sees itself as a defender of the indefensible...if that makes sense.

    I don't agree with them very much, but I feel as though their reaction is, "we can't let the vitriol felt towards these offenses have an affect on our rights."

    I don't think it is simply, "let's ignore the victims and protect the pariahs." I think it is more of a "even though these people are scum we have to preserve the basic rights of the cult." or something like that

    So, like I said, I don't agree all the time, but I do understand why they are always siding with the unpopular side in most cases they stick their noses in.

  16. #16
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,955
    [QUOTE=piney;2492529]ehh..I think the ACLU gets itself on the wrong side of issues because it sees itself as a defender of the indefensible...if that makes sense.

    I don't agree with them very much, but I feel as though their reaction is, "we can't let the vitriol felt towards these offenses have an affect on our rights."

    I don't think it is simply, "let's ignore the victims and protect the pariahs." I think it is more of a "even though these people are scum we have to preserve the basic rights of the cult." or something like that

    So, like I said, I don't agree all the time, but I do understand why they are always siding with the unpopular side in most cases they stick their noses in.[/QUOTE]

    I would love the ACLU......if they could just use a little more judgement and logic in who they protect. When you choose the religious rights of child abusers over the human rights of the children, you've simply picked the wrong side, the wrong rights, to protect.

    Something like the ACLU is very needed in a free country like ours, I beleive that. But I believe the ACLU itself has "jumped the shark" from protecter/defender of our freedoms, to something not nearly so genuine in it's motivations.

    By the way, that goes double for our Media, our "Free Press", who (IMO) clearly no longer serves the meaningul purpose the founders intended when they wrote the protections the Media enjoy.

    Every right and freedom has a logical limit (usually when they infringe on freedoms of others). The ACLU has forgotton that fact a long while ago.

  17. #17
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2492559]I would love the ACLU......if they could just use a little more judgement and logic in who they protect. When you choose the religious rights of child abusers over the human rights of the children, you've simply picked the wrong side, the wrong rights, to protect.

    Something like the ACLU is very needed in a free country like ours, I beleive that. But I believe the ACLU itself has "jumped the shark" from protecter/defender of our freedoms, to something not nearly so genuine in it's motivations.

    By the way, that goes double for our Media, our "Free Press", who (IMO) clearly no longer serves the meaningul purpose the founders intended when they wrote the protections the Media enjoy.

    Every right and freedom has a logical limit (usually when they infringe on freedoms of others). The ACLU has forgotton that fact a long while ago.[/QUOTE]

    I agree with you in principal, that the children's rights trump those of their abusers...I too think the ACLU has to take a long look in the mirror and redefine itself...


    ...but, in this case, the ACLU isn't needed to protect the rights of the abused kids, because there will be plenty of people out there to do that, but no one will protect the religious rights of the abusers, which in turn becomes the religious rights of all of us, and that is where they step in.

    I would assume that in their view, if this case resulted in some sort of ruling that handicapped our basic freedom of religion, then the country would be worse off than before.

    They almost are willing to sacrifice proper punishment of some in order to protect our freedoms overall.

    Obviously this won't be the best analogy but it is sort of the same reasoning why John Adams chose to defend the British solders after the Boston Massacre.

    Having said that, I do think they have grown bloated and distorted from the original purpose.

    No matter how unpopular the individual, his rights must be preserved.

  18. #18
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,759
    [QUOTE=chicadeel;2492499] "The possibility exists that Rozita Swinton, who has nothing to do with the FLDS church, may have been a woman who made calls and pretended she was the 16-year-old girl named Sarah," CNN's Gary Tuchman reported...[/QUOTE]

    Thanks for the link, Chic...


    Look at it this way. It gave those meatheads at the Midland Sheriffs Department a reason to use the APC they bought.

  19. #19
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,955
    [QUOTE=piney;2492595]but no one will protect the religious rights of the abusers, which in turn becomes the religious rights of all of us, and that is where they step in.[/QUOTE]

    This is the core of our disagreement. I truly believe the "Slippery slope" argument is majorly overstated. Logic and common sense MUST have a place in our society, our laws and our law enforcement.

    I'm a big pro-guns guy, but ffs, wadcutter armor piercing bullets SHOULD be illegal, as should machine guns. No, I don't think it's a "slippery slope" heading for making ALL guns illegal, it's logic and common sense. Armor Piercing machine guns are no more needed by the people than tanks and Warthog Figher Planes. The argument "the people need them to fight the Govy. if it comes to that" sailed a looooooong time ago. One A1 Abrams and few F-16's could take out the entire civillian rebellion if it wanted to.

    Same here. I am sorry, but stopping child absuing cultists is NOT a slippery slope to one day stop Christains from having Churches. It just isn't.

    Logic and Common sense, the lost ideal of our society it seems to me.

  20. #20
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;2492497] In this case those other people are children that society has a right if not an obligation to protect.[/QUOTE]

    The law should be respected - ok but it's somewhat of a moving target. Not too long ago young women at 13, 14, 15, 16 were getting wed routinely to older men - and having kids - and plowing the fields - now all of it is considered child abuse in Texas.

    It should also be noted the definitions change between states - what's illegal in Texas might be legal in Maine or Alabama. How can something that's illegal in one state but legal in another really be considered Child Abuse?

    Warfish last time i checked forcable sodomy of an underage boy is illegal in all states, these are not analgous (heh heh) situations.

    All this being said I certainly don't condone these practices but it's not as black and white as it seems - I do wonder if ripping a community apart, putting some in jail, the others in foster homes, is really the best solution to this so-called problem. These institutions are terribly flawed, these people are probably better off where they were, as dispicable as we might find it, this is their way of life.

    Again none of you can respond adequately to the issue of Short Creek. Go ahead and google "short creek" - this whole scene played out over 50 years ago and the end result was - nothing changed. That's my prediction here. You can tell people they are living disgracefully but if they have lawyers who can site the bill of rights it's not going to end well for the government.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us