Friday, October 2, 2009

More about the FLDS raid...

The very first post of this blog was in regard to the awesomely ass-backward and unlawful manner in which the Texas Children's Protective Services went about carrying out a raid upon the Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints, after CPS received reports of ALLEGED abuse by a habitual liar claiming to be an "escaped 16 year old sexual abuse victim". Turns out, she was actually a 30-something woman in Colorado.

CPS, with the help of the local county sheriff and his tank named "Bubba" (yes, they actually brought a real-deal armored personnel carrier to the scene, in hopes of getting into a Waco-style shootout), executed warrants signed by judges that were based solely upon unsubstantiated (read: TOTAL BULLSHIT) reports of abuse by this woman. One of two things happened here...either those responsible for obtaining the warrants lied to the judge in their legally-required sworn affidavits of probable cause, or the judge unlawfully signed warrants without the necessary probable cause. Either way it went down, the FLDS "compound" was raided illegally.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's kinda creepy to be doing the doggy-style with a 16 year old girl if you're old enough to buy your own cigarettes, and I very clearly stated that in the previous posting. However, that doesn't change the fact that these people were raided by the police, in violation of the law.

Are they guilty of the charges presented? In all likelihood, probably so. That doesn't change the most important fact of this case, however. First and foremost, the law was violated in order to raid the compound, seize more than 400 "children" (I put it in quotes, because several of these "children" were, in fact, legal adults at the time of their kidnapping). To date, all but one of these "children" have been returned to their parents...even though their parents have been forced to submit to all manner of intrusive and rigorous scrutiny by local authorities, without so much as the slightest bit of proof of any wrongdoing.

Moreover, any evidence of wrongdoing by FLDS members at their Texas "Compound" will result in ONLY ONE OF TWO POSSIBILITIES...and neither of them are really good.

1) All evidence obtained in this raid will eventually be thrown out on appeal, which will result in the overturned convictions of probable child molestors. This is good for America in general, but bad for the probable victims of molestation.

2) The evidence obtained in this raid WILL NOT be thrown out on appeal, which is good for the probable victims of abuse...but happens to be very bad for those who value their constitutional rights.

If a judge can say "yes, I know your rights were violated, but it was a means to an end!", what does that say when your neighbor doesn't like what you've done with your lawn and decides to call the police and say you're making child porn in the garage? What about when your ex-girlfriend gets pissed off at you, and tells the cops you're growing pot in your living room?

Are you willing to let police go through your personal and private belongings, merely because someone claims over the telephone that they saw something, just because "the children" might be protected?

Do you see what I'm getting at? If we are willing to allow the essential constitutional rights of even the worst of humanity to be violated, we are merely setting ourselves up to have our own rights be violated. Remember when everyone you knew was more than willing to allow warrantless wiretaps to protect us from "terrorists", because the president said we needed it? Well, how do you people feel now that the NEW president has declared you and me to be "terrorists"? Still feeling willing to allow warrantless wiretaps?

Remember the words of Jesus..."Whatever you do to the least of my brethren, you also do to me." Well, the same holds true of American citizens...whatever rights of the most sick and depraved amongst us you have violated, those same rights of mine have also been violated. Either you believe in the constitution, or you don't.

1 comment:

  1. Good article, horrible CSS. I had to copy and paste to read it. Consider dark text on whit background...