the initial report was a lie, but that does not mean what the compound was doing was legal. They still were sick and should have had their kids removed whether they “officially” abused them or not.
Let us know if you feel the same way when someone from the Government knocks on your door and accuses you of raising your kids in a way Hillary doesn't approve of, unofficially of course.
Then they yank them out of your wifes arms and send them 600 miles away all without ever charging you with any crime at all.
You're not only a fool, you're a dangerous fool.
L
One writer (Marci Hamilton) did a great job in sizing this up on a May 1 post…what I kind of reference as the doctrine of ipso-findo:
“Yet, many have argued there was a violation of due process as though the authorities are required to be intentionally ignorant about the communities within their jurisdiction. FLDS lawyers have been floating to the press and public the bizarre notion that authorities were required to enter the compound with a mental blank slate, as though they knew absolutely nothing about the FLDS. It is a position that defies common sense. While authorities need probable cause for a particular raid, they do not have to act stupid once they are inside a criminal organization, whether it is a religious group, the mob, or a drug cartel. Indeed, it is law enforcement's obligation to be informed about likely criminal conduct in their jurisdiction. That includes orchestrated child abuse.“ See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2009647/posts
Not only was it a lie, but the appellate judges ruled that there was NO EVIDENCE that supported the claims of the CPS. Basically, the CPS just didn’t like what they THOUGHT was the FLDS belief system and took over 450 children from their parents without any proof whatsoever!
What? Are you an idiot?
First of all, if they didn't abuse them (I'll eschew the meaningless "officially" here), then the children shouldn't have been removed. To the extent that any of the girls were being forced into underaged marriages with much older men (and the evidence now seems to suggest that this allegation has, in the very least, been blown waaaaaaay out of proportion to what actually might have happened), then ONLY those girls should have been removed from ONLY those families. You don't remove children from other families, based on what their neighbour down the street is doing.
Polygamy is illegal. But guess what? Since polygamy is illegal, the logical course of action is to arrest the men who are polygamists. You don't go in and take every last kid out of a community, even from the families which were strictly monogamous and of legal age. You don't do it even if you disagree with their religion and think that they are "sick". You know why? Because the government big enough to do it to them is also big enough to do it to you. What are you going to do when some bureaucratic nabob takes the notion that raising YOUR kids in YOUR religion is "child abuse", and goes in and takes YOUR kids away and puts them in some foster home somewhere?
Where will you be then, hunh Mr. "I want to toss the whole principle of constitutional rule of law aside like it was a used sandwich wrapper"?
"Fake but accurate" "Ends justify the means" "Comrade Napoleon is always right" "kill them all, let God sort them out"
Get back to us and let us know how that works out when the state decides that they don't quite like your attitude or beliefs. Get all of your 'papers' in order so that you will be ready when they knock -- if they bother. Don't bother trying not to answer the door when they come because they will burn your house down and your neighbors will cheer because they always suspected you were a little odd.
Not that we didn't try to preserve your rights even though its obvious that you don't appreciate them ...
Fake but accurate eh? Dan Rather would be proud of you.
If the evidence was obtained in an illegal way, that is "fruit of the poisonous tree" and the case must be dismissed.