Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I'm sure everyone is aware of the situation going on in Texas, where authorities have raided an FLDS compound. FLDS is the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, a breakaway Mormon sect that still practices polygamy. The affidavit filed to secure a warrant has been released publicly and the things it describes are quite repulsive and reveal classic cult behavior.
The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services got phone calls from a 16 year old girl inside the compound. She'd been taken there at 13 years of age, where she was promptly "married" to a 49 year old man and impregnated. That man has already been convicted of child sexual abuse in the past. She has one young child and is pregnant with another.
She reported being physically abused by her "husband" repeatedly and not being allowed to leave the compound except for medical purposes, and only then when accompanied by a male from the compound. They would not allow her to take her infant child with her off the property, which serves to insure that she won't try to escape. This is classic cult behavior.
The girl told authorities that she is being held against her will and they went and got a warrant to get her out. Upon entering the compound, they found dozens and dozens of girls who had been "spiritually married" to middle aged men and impregnated at 13 or 14 years of age. That's why they started bringing all the children out. The list of felonies being committed there on a daily basis is long.
Sandefur writes about a ridiculous post by Butler Shaffer at Lew Rockwell that discusses "interesting parallels" between this situation and...military bases. Seriously.
As I observed media coverage of the government's assault on the Mormon sect's property at El Dorado, Texas, I was struck by the fact that the description being offered of the church's facilities and activities paralleled those of military installations.For starters, the activities of the religious group were described as "secretive" in nature, ignoring the fact that the military routinely puts the stamp of "secret" on virtually everything it does - short of participating in a holiday parade. Nor does the church permit non-members access to its property. In the words of the state prosecutor who seems to be directing this assault, "their place of worship is very special to them. It appears to be of great concern to them if a person from outside their congregation even attempts to step inside their place of worship." But have you ever tried getting onto a military base? If so, haven't you met with the same "great concern" from armed guards desirous of keeping those "from outside their congregation" from entering?
It has also been reported that this church provides a great deal of on-site housing, as well as provision for the daily needs of its members, so as to make the facility as self-sufficient as possible. Again, if you have been able to get onto military bases, did you fail to notice all of the on-base housing (barracks) as well as churches, schools, recreational facilities, gas stations, movie theaters, medical offices, PX stores, and other means of accommodating the needs of their members?
One cable news report informed us that church officials wore insignias indicating the level of their authority within the organization. Need I point out the obvious?
Argument by insinuation. Allow me to point out what is, indeed, obvious: if military bases were used for raping (no, the "spiritual marriage" does not transform the rape of a 13 year old girl into anything other than rape) barely pubescent girls, he might have a point. Yes, military bases are well guarded and have on-base housing. And therefore....what? Shaffer doesn't say, of course, I suspect because he knows his insinuations are utterly moronic. Like this conclusion:
Finally, the stated purpose for this governmental assault on the church has been that young, teenage girls have been the victims of rape and forced marriages. If this is true, there is no moral defense one could possibly make of such practices. But the government is hardly in a position to make such a condemnation. In a March 31, 2008 news story, the Los Angeles Times carried an op-ed piece informing us of what was known ever before that date: the frequent rapes of women soldiers by their fellow soldiers. One woman was reportedly raped by a military physician, another by her commanding officer. The author concludes that "women in the U.S. military are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq."
All of which is true, and all of which should be stopped. But that hardly justifies this idiotic claim that because government sometimes does bad things, there is no justification for it also doing good things. If the government has any legitimate job, surely it's protecting young children from being raped by those in a position of authority over them. That the government also does bad things hardly undermines the legitimacy of that task. Sandefur nails it perfectly:
Once again, this is not libertarianism. This is an unprincipled, childish hostility to anything done by government, even if it is acting in defense of the rights of the innocent against the nastiest imaginable assaults.
Quite so.
Comments
Of course, there's another problem with the argument that "the government" lacks moral authority in this matter because of rapes by members of the millitary - this is a DIFFERENT GOVERNMENT. Unless the Texas child welfare agency has been federalized, the federal military's failings can't be imputed to the agency and certainly isn't a sign of hypocrisy.
Posted by: AnneS | April 10, 2008 10:08 AM
Yup. I really wish we true libertarians could better distance ourselves from the anti-federalists in the minds of the public. On my blog, I advocated for the HPV vaccine being mandatory for girls in Texas, and I received a comment asking how I reconciled that with libertarianism. Ridiculous. Since when does endorsing liberty for adults equate to allowing adults to abuse children?
Posted by: Braxton Thomason | April 10, 2008 10:08 AM
Should we also point out that when crime occurs on a military base, civilian authorities often weild exactly the kind of jurisdictional authority they are demonstrating here. I mean, when Jeffrey MacDonald killed his whole family on a military base in North Carolina, it was the civilian police and district attorneys who investigated and prosecuted the crime.
Posted by: CPT_Doom | April 10, 2008 10:28 AM
Ed: Is there a post coming on the New Mexico photographer case? I'm curious what your take is. I'm not sure where to go with that.
As for this case, I had a crush on the blind sister on "Little House on the Prairie," too, but I think it went away in Junior High.
Posted by: kehrsam | April 10, 2008 10:38 AM
A more alarmist name would be "Kill Bot Factory"
Posted by: Donalbain | April 10, 2008 11:07 AM
Oh boy, fun with random insinutaion! Lemme try...
As I observed media coverage of the government's assault on the Mormon sect's property at El Dorado, Texas, I was struck by the fact that the description being offered of the church's facilities and activities paralleled those of private single-family homes.
For starters, the activities of the religious group were described as "secretive" in nature, ignoring the fact that homeowners routinely put the stamp of "private" and "none of your business" on everything they do in their homes - short of participating in a holiday parade. Nor does the church permit non-members access to its property. In the words of the state prosecutor who seems to be directing this assault, "their place of worship is very special to them. It appears to be of great concern to them if a person from outside their congregation even attempts to step inside their place of worship." But have you ever tried getting into a private home you don't own? If so, haven't you met with the same "great concern" from homeowners/heads of household desirous of keeping those "from outside their congregation" from entering?
It has also been reported that this church provides a great deal of on-site housing, as well as provision for the daily needs of its members, so as to make the facility as self-sufficient as possible. Again, if you have been able to get into private homes, did you fail to notice all of the on-base living-space (bedrooms) as well as kitchens, bathrooms, closets, garages, furniture, and other means of accommodating the needs of their members?
One cable news report informed us that church officials wore insignias indicating the level of their authority within the organization. Need I point out the obvious?
No, you definitely don't need to point out "the obvious," since you've already done that. Which leads us inexorably to the shocking conclusion:
Finally, the stated purpose for this governmental assault on the church has been that young, teenage girls have been the victims of rape and forced marriages. If this is true, there is no moral defense one could possibly make of such practices. But private homeowners are hardly in a position to make such a condemnation. In a March 31, 2008 news story, we learned of what was known ever before that date: the frequent rapes of women by people in private homes. One woman was reportedly raped by an abusive husband, another by her father. The author concludes that "women in their homes are more likely to be raped by a homeowner than killed by enemy fire in Iraq."
COINCIDENCE??!!! I think not. Shocking, innit?
Property is rape! Abolish private property! On with The Revolution!
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 10, 2008 11:37 AM
Let me let you all in on a little secret; Jim Jones graduated from my high school. I remember the whole Jonestown thing going down when I was about ten. Jim's wife's family still lived in my hometown and had her buried there. (I think their graves aren't too far away from my parents' future graves). The media swarmed in for the funerals of her and her children.
Why do I mention this? It is because I am strongly, violently opposed to any type of cult activity. I hope the Texas child welfare offices finds safe, secure, stable homes for these girls and that the rapist/"husbands" are prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Posted by: Rev. AJB | April 10, 2008 11:38 AM
Freedom of religion is not an excuse for child rape. Every adult in that compound should be charged with rape. The men were the rapists and the women were accomplices. The disgust I feel for these animals knows no bounds.
I'm morally and ethically opposed to the death penalty, but at times like this I wish I weren't. Serial child rapists are the lowest form of life on this planet (from a moral perspective). The women who enable them are no better.
Posted by: Kenneth New | April 10, 2008 11:57 AM
I take a little exception to the first paragraph of the piece. Characterizing this cult as one that practices polygamy is accurate, but misleading. It's not the polygamy that's the problem, it's the child abuse and rape under the guise of polygamy.
Now, I don't practice polygamy myself, and have no interest in it personally, but I understand it works just fine for some people (if not under the law), and tarring everyone who is in a relationship with more than one partner with the brush of rape and child abuse isn't completely fair.
Posted by: Penn | April 10, 2008 11:58 AM
Penn,
I seem to remember some people using the word "polyamory" to distinguish consensual, adult multi-partner relationships from non-consensual, child-abusing "polygamist" relationships. I don't know much about the polyamory movement beyond the name, but I think that might get to the distinction you were suggesting.
Posted by: Wes | April 10, 2008 12:13 PM
Penn: with this crowd, the distinction between polygamy and rape disappears. From what I'm hearing, ALL of the girls in these extreme Mormon sects are given to men long before they reach the age of consent. The sexual relationships are never consensual here.
Wes: you're mostly right -- polyamory means "consensual, adult multi-partner relationships," while polygamy means such relationships formalized in some sort of law. For Muslims and Mormons, of course, the only multi-partner relationships to be recognized are those consisting of one man and several women all subservient to him. Polyamory can take many other forms, such as one woman with several boyfriends, or two men and three women, or whatever with whoever.
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 10, 2008 12:44 PM
Penn, West -
Polygamy is specific to the one husband/multiple wives; the alternative is "polyandry", and "polyamory" covers both (and any other relationship involving more than two consenting adults.
Relationships are relationships, though, outside the context of the cult; there are healthy relationships and unhealthy ones and the number of participants doesn't change that much.
Posted by: Steve | April 10, 2008 12:46 PM
FWIW, here's what Wikipedia says:
In social anthropology polygamy is the practice of marriage to more than one spouse simultaneously. Historically, polygamy has been practiced as polygyny (one man having more than one wife), or as polyandry (one woman having more than one husband), or, less commonly as "polygamy" (one person having many wives and many husbands at the same time). (See "Forms of Polygamy" below.) In contrast monogamy is the practice of each person having only one spouse. Like monogamy, the term is often used in a de facto sense, applying regardless of whether the relationships are recognized by the state (see marriage for a discussion on the extent to which states can and do recognize potentially and actually polygamous forms as valid).
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 10, 2008 1:00 PM
No, polygamy is a general term for multiple spouses. The term specific to one husband and multiple wives is polygyny.
Posted by: Gretchen | April 10, 2008 1:03 PM
Well, I'm not going to step into the melee here among the libertarians in crisis mode, but I'll tell you something outrageous about this cult and how it is being reported, at least locally.
Last night my wife and I were stuck watching our local Burlington, VT CBS station at the news hour. Now, we normally never watch TV news, but our new city cable company had just upgraded its system, and channel changing was not an option at the moment.
The "report" on what was going on at the Church in Texas came on, and by the time it was over, my wife and I were dumbfounded to realize that at no time in the report did they identify the Church.
Not a mention that there was religion involved at all, and certainly no indication that it was a "Fundamentalist" "Christian" "Church".
The only descriptors they used were "Polygamy Cult." Evidently there was a whole lot going on by polygamists who were part of a polygamist cult and they did all these polygamist cult things at a Polygamist Cult Compound.
Phew. Evidently Christians who worship Jesus were not involved. Thank the Lord for small favors.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | April 10, 2008 1:22 PM
Ed,
You seem to be making the same kind of arguments justifying the massive government intrusion in this Texas case that you have argued against when the targets of the government are less personally repugnant to you.
I have no respect or tolerance for religious nuts that sexually abuse adolescents in the name of their silly faith, but that doesn't mean that the authorities can ignore the 4th amendment.
The issue, to me, is that this massive raid by government authorities was predicated on a warrant that was obtained based on what amounts to an anonymous tip.
Here is a quote from the most recent AP story.
The police had the right to detain the "spiritual husband" and remove that particular girl. They seem to have gone far beyond that point and in fact have not even found the girl that supposedly made the "hushed phone calls".
At this point I am not certain that the actions taken by the Texas authorities are illegal. Perhaps there is information that has yet to be released that will demonstrate that they acted legally by raiding an entire community, rounding up hundreds of people, and taking hundreds of children away from their parents and placing them in the custody of the state on the word of one anonymous girl. They better have hade some pretty damning evidence in hand to justify this extraordinarily invasive action.
Also they did not arrest any adults, so this tells me that they probably don't have sufficient evidence that a crime was committed by anyone other than the one "spiritual husband".
I used to live in Nappanee, Indiana. It is located in a heavily Amish community where the young women are strongly influenced to marry within the community at very young ages most often under age 20. Would it be OK with you if the state of Indiana raided these communities and rounded up hundreds of people based on one girl's phone calls?
The entire episode gives me pause.
Posted by: Lance | April 10, 2008 1:46 PM
Look here, this apple is round and so is this orange, therefore they must be similar! QED, bitches!
I don't much care for the military but seriously, there's flawed arguments and then there's just stupid.
And anyone defending the libertarian rights of a child rape cult deserves a punch in the mouth. "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" does not include the right to have your own little rape playground.
Posted by: Keith | April 10, 2008 1:51 PM
Gingerbaker-There are those of us who are mainline Christian who do not believe that mainline Mormonism IS Christian-let alone a nutjob sect like this one.
Just like Jim Jones and David Koresh; they were using the name of God in a way to abuse others.
In that respect they are truly not religious at all.
Posted by: Rev. AJB | April 10, 2008 1:52 PM
Lance, if you think they did this just based on one girl's phone calls, you live in a fantasyland, not Indiana.
Posted by: Jason | April 10, 2008 1:54 PM
Lance:
The police aren't allowed to operate on most anonymous tips, but in the case of someone claiming to be falsely imprisoned, raped, etc. on an ongoing basis, they certainly are, just as the cops have an expanded right to search for weapons in a "stop and frisk" situation.
Once a search gets initiated, although the police's actions are still restricted, evidence that comes up of other crimes can be used as the basis for further action. In this case, the police acted to try to find the specific caller, and instead found evidence of wholesale child rape. At that point, the police are indeed entitled to act on that new evidence.
Your Amish argument is a ridiculous red herring. Yes, I would consider getting married at 18 or 19 (or even 16 or 17 depending on state laws) younger than might be personally wise, but hardly illegal. Forcing a 13 year old to "marry" a 49 year old is a completely different situation, and I really hope you can see the difference.
Posted by: Matthew L. | April 10, 2008 1:55 PM
"Extraordinarily invasive action?" Please. They got a warrant, and then they found more evidence of a pattern of rape and -- let's put it bluntly -- enslavement; which pretty much required the authorities to expand their search.
Also they did not arrest any adults, so this tells me that they probably don't have sufficient evidence that a crime was committed by anyone other than the one "spiritual husband".
It could also tell you that they need to process the evidence before they can formally charge perticular persons with particular criminal acts.
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 10, 2008 2:15 PM
I like how Lance has simultaneously claimed that the government overreached in this situation, and then turns around and accuses them of failing to arrest anyone.
What I've read says they are only holding children, and the women are free to go when they want.
Posted by: Braxton Thomason | April 10, 2008 2:19 PM
Lance-I also have read where the Amish are very much against child rape/abuse. This may be rumor or specualtion; but I have heard where Amish men have gone as far as castrating men who were accused of child abuse.
Posted by: Rev. AJB | April 10, 2008 2:21 PM
Correction: let me rephrase my beginning as "The police are restricted in their ability to act on anonymous tips", since the rules are complex and depend on the situation. Anonymous tips are not enough to convict, but evidence gathered following up on one may be admissible.
In response to the original argument that the US government lacks moral authority because many female soldiers get raped is especially absurd because there's a big difference between failing to do everything you should to prevent rapes, and systematically arranging them.
Posted by: Matthew L. | April 10, 2008 2:22 PM
Lance,
As I am sure you are aware by now, the Texas authorities have announced they have had an informant in this compound for 4 years. Check any news outlet. Some detail on probable cause, with more coming out every update.
Ed,
The Arizona sex offender most often mentioned as the "spiritual husband" of this girl has been misidentified. The Texas authorities are now claiming that he is not the person they want. Unfortunately, he has the same name as the cult member.
Posted by: Pineyman | April 10, 2008 2:23 PM
Lance's comment is utter nonsense. The warrant was not based on an "anonymous tip" it was based on a direct report of multiple crimes from the victim of those crimes; such a warrant would be granted in any case. As others have noted, once they are serving the warrant they have every legal right to act on direct evidence of any further crimes; in this case, seeing dozens of 13 and 14 year old girls pregnant or already with children - all precisely what the initial victim told them was going on - is clear evidence of those crimes. The only reason they haven't arrested any adult men yet is because they first have to establish which one impregnated which young girl. They will establish that through testimony from the girls and probably through DNA tests as well. All of this has been absolutely in line with the law, and it will continue to be. They will have to hold hearings on each particular child to have them placed in state custody and those hearings will follow the law. Everyone accused of any crime will be granted the same due process any other person accused of a crime is granted. But absolutely nothing that has happened to this point is the least bit constitutionally problematic: they got a legal warrant based on probable cause and they acted precisely as the law requires.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | April 10, 2008 4:19 PM
Kenneth New -
The women who enable them are no better.
It might help to realize that many, if not all of the women in this sect, were in the same position at the same age. It is hard to condemn them, when they are as much victims as the children currently being abused.
It is very common in cults, for members, especially women, to be kept as ignorant as possible. They are brainwashed from an early age to have an inherent mistrust of outsiders and to communicate as little as possible with them. Indeed, some cults have even made a practice of not registering the births of their followers.
Look at it from this perspective; A young girl of thirteen is taken as the wife of a church member. She has her first baby at fourteen, probably having several subsequent children. She is uneducated and is not allowed contact with the outside. The only time she goes outside, she is accompanied by at least one male from the congregation, while her children are still held hostage at home. She has also been brainwashed from an extremely early age, that this life is the only life acceptable to her god.
At what point exactly, is she culpable? Really, at what point would you define her as a responsible, adult women?
Posted by: DuWayne | April 10, 2008 4:26 PM
DuWayne: I think I've heard about this. I think it's called Saudi Arabia.
Posted by: Braxton Thomason | April 10, 2008 4:38 PM
It is also important to note that even if one believes in the right of adults to form polygamous or polyamorous relationships, that is not what we are talking about here. Not only are these girls "spiritually married" when they are under the age of consent, as I understand it, many of these fundamentalist Mormon cults also "reassign" wives as their "husbands" rise and fall out of favor with the leadership of the cult. That brings the practice even more into the realm of slavery than "marriage."
Posted by: CPT_Doom | April 10, 2008 4:47 PM
Posted by: Taz | April 10, 2008 5:37 PM
DuWayne wrote:
Perhaps that point came when they failed to protect their own daughters.
I currently know a woman who was sexually abused for a long time as a child. As a consequence, she is completely messed up and can't recognize obvious signs of abuse in her own 6 year old son, who has now begun to abuse other children.
I can understand why his mother failed to recognize and act on the signs, but that doesn't absolve her of her responsibility. She is directly responsible for not only his abuse, but every child that he has and will abuse as a consequence of her not intervening.
Posted by: Leni | April 10, 2008 5:44 PM
I'm not sure that we want to go down the road of declaring women in fundamentalist cults to be of diminished capacity. Where does it stop? If the women in question are adults, I believe they should be charged as accomplices to rape. If their defense attorneys want to argue diminished capacity based on their religious upbringing, they are welcome to do so. If a jury can be convinced, then they won't be convicted. Under our system, ignorance of the law is no defense.
Let me add that I am sympathetic to these women if they were indoctrinated in this cult from an early age. But I'm not sure that we can infantilize them by assuming that they aren't competent enough to understand their own actions. I believe that's what a trial is for.
On the other hand, if we were to get a ruling on the books establishing that such an upbringing is mentally damaging enough to cause diminished capacity, it would set a precedent for government intervention. I'm not sure how I feel about that, but I'm sure that I'm uncomfortable with just assuming that they are incapable of being responsible for their own actions.
Posted by: Kenneth New | April 10, 2008 5:52 PM
Taz -
That is a very good point. The major difference that I can see, is that the men are not slaves to anything more than their teachings. The women are not just slaves to their teachings, they are physically slaves in fact.
Leni -
Perhaps that point came when they failed to protect their own daughters.
Protecting them how exactly? They aren't exactly given the freedom to do so, if they really wanted to.
Lets take this young mother to the next generation. She's twenty-six now and has probably given birth to a number of children. She's still kept basically as a slave, her children hostages for her continued cooperation. She's still not allowed to go "outside" without a male chaperon from the church. She is probably also certain that attempting to do anything about it, is going to be dangerous not just to her, but to her children.
On top of all that, she has also been brainwashed from a very early age. This is not your typical sexual abuse victim. This is someone who's mother was probably the same age when she had her first child. She has been raised by these vile people and knows nothing of life outside the cult. As far as she's concerned, this is what life is supposed to be like. She is, in every way, convinced that because she is female, she is less of a person than the men who have enslaved her.
I would put the question to you thusly; Is a slave responsible for their actions, when doing the will of their master? Knowing that the consequences for non-compliance will be brutal and if the transgression is grievous enough, they might be put to death?
Kenneth New -
See my response to Leni, specifically the question of slavery. I would argue that they are very much of diminished capacity. These women spend their lives as slaves for crying out loud. What exactly are they supposed to do about it? Especially when they have seen other women beaten for various transgressions? To get to the point where we are talking about their willingness to participate, we have to get through the point that they are literally slaves to the men. That they might believe this is right and just is besides the point. The point is that they don't have a choice in the matter. The men make good and damn sure of that.
Posted by: DuWayne | April 10, 2008 6:20 PM
A fact that is being ignored is that in Texas, a girl may marry at the age of 14 with the consent of her parents, and at the age of 13 with the consent of her parents and the approval of a Judge.
I realize that these girls were "spiritually" married rather than legally married so the "husbands" remain in deep trouble, but I wonder if this shifts anyone's opinion?
Posted by: bobz | April 10, 2008 6:41 PM
So after I posted I thought it would have been a good idea to actually check the Texas law rather than rely on a conversation I had earlier today.
Age of consent is 18, with parental consent is 16, and any age is OK if you can convince a Judge it's a good idea.
Posted by: bobz | April 10, 2008 7:02 PM
I have noticed something I find most troublesome about this whole incident that I have not seen addressed anywhere. I think that what happened inside the compound is horrible and criminal charges and further investigations are necessary and should be extended to other FLDS compounds. On top of that I find it disturbing that the children were moved from the the compound in buses that had "Baptist Church" on their sides and that the volunteers at the temporary shelters were from local churches. Given the huge influence of the Relgious Right in Texas I hope that the abuse of these children is not compounded by forcing them to be exposed to rabid christianists who will batter them with their bibles. Coming out of the hell of the compounds only to have people telling them that they are bound for an eternal hell is only going to make matters worse.
Posted by: wrpd | April 10, 2008 7:14 PM
How can a girl, aged 13 or 14, really "consent" to much of anything, let alone a marriage? For that matter, a boy that age wouldn't be any better at "consenting". OTOH, I really don't think that condemning "polygamy" does any good for anyone, if everybody involved in such arrangements is over 18 and really does have some idea of what they're doing. Who knows, maybe relationships like that are right for the people involved. If that were the case, I wouldn't give a you-know-what about the FLDS. I really wouldn't. They should be free to believe whatever they want to believe and practice whatever they want to practice. But "marrying" a 13 or 14 year old girl to someone three times her age? And then the girl starts having kids at 14 or 15? That used to happen in medieval times, but the men involved, while, "mature", weren't usually quite *that* much older. Just old enough to be "established"> And women often had a lot more "leeway",even in medieval times, than with this FLDS setup. Heck, they could go aout and buy and sell, set up shop, ect., etc., and if they were widows, it was quite possible for a woman to remarry whoever she wanted, and she not infrequently did. Besides, in medieval times, that's what women(and men), kind of *expected*! But the FLDS isn't even living in a time warp. They --- the men, at least --- know *exactly* what they're doing. And that is, twisting some wome religious doctrine to suit their own warped needs. I'm glad the State of Texas interfered with this little "setup" for a change. I lived in Texas for 2 years, and it's rare that "official" government there interferes in much of anything.
Anne G
Posted by: Anne Gilbert | April 10, 2008 7:37 PM
wrpd,
Actually, there's a way you could see this in a different light. The women being removed would probably be much more willing to go along with an explicitly religious group who is removing them, rather than with a secular group. My guess is that the totalizing religious worldview of the FLDS might make the women distrustful of anything that doesn't have Jesus and God plastered all over it.
The fact that the churches are Baptist rather than Mormom might create some risk of proselytizing, but the shared superstitions might make the transition more tolerable and smooth than it would be if the group taking them in weren't soaked in God-talk.
These women might not even have much comprehension of language that isn't steeped in religious imagery and metaphor, in which case they might have difficulty communicating outside of religious circles. To make an analogy with another totalizing religious worldview, Rolling Stone a couple years back had a very good article on some people who had been raised in a very restrictive Scientologist environment. According to them, when they finally left Scientology they had difficulty even understanding the language people use outside of the church. They worried that the language they had grown up speaking wasn't even real English! If religious talk is all you have ever known, it can be very isolating when you try to communicate with outsiders. The women removed from this polygamist compound might have serious trouble communicating with (and, consequently, trusting) people who can't speak to them on their own terms.
Posted by: Wes | April 10, 2008 7:47 PM
wes
I agree completely and I can also understand a willingness to go from one totalitarian group to another. I just hope there is not much heavy-handedness going on from the Baptists.
Posted by: wrpd | April 10, 2008 8:19 PM
It's not the polygamy that's the problem, it's the child abuse and rape under the guise of polygamy.
Institutional polygyny is built entirely on a foundation of women as second class citizens. Hence the fact that it's only men who get to have multiple spouses. In order for the practice to exist, men must be seen as having more value than women. Under such a system, abuse becomes inevitable.
Of course, it's also a raw deal for most of the men too. One of the other dirty little secrets of these cults is that most of the young men end up getting kicked out so the higher status men won't have to compete with them for wives:
http://www.mazeministry.com/mormonism/polygamy/lostboys.htm
Posted by: Boo | April 10, 2008 8:26 PM
Another problem in identifying and indicting the perpetrators, from what I have read, is that many of these FLDS cultists have the same names, they do not have proper birth certificates with heel prints, the children identify several women as "Mother," and DNA tests may be confusing as they are all cousins, inbred for four or five generations to the point that many of them suffer from genetic mental retardation due to fumarase deficiency disorder. These elder men who are the harem masters are apparently committing incest as well as rape, pedophilia, and slavery, and I don't understand why they are not under arrest.
This tippy toeing around freedom of religion is too ridiculous. If this were a compound of atheists abusing their children like this, they would all be in a dungeon somewhere and water boarded to get the facts. But the Baptists and the Lutherans and the Catholics are just too, too careful not to indict all patriarchal religion; oh no, these FLDS guys just took things a bit too far.
Oh, and Wes, you are absolutely correct about the communication problems that these cultists will have, and that's a very insightful analysis. It could take twenty years of education and therapy to integrate these people into modern American society, and some of them won't make the transition. One suggestion made, which I thought had some merit, was that they should be adopted by mainstream Mormon families with the hope that the next generation of all LDS would be more enlightened by this experience.
Posted by: Elizabeth | April 10, 2008 9:03 PM
DuWayne wrote:
DuWayne, it's not as if I don't empathize with the women. They've probably faced far more difficult things than I ever will have to. I wouldn't expect them to behave in the same way I would. But I do expect them to protect their children, and the fact remains that they didn't.
It's not as if I'm some cold-hearted ghoul, and that I don't understand that the situation is complicated and that these women probably need a lot of help. But it's always complicated. Abusers always have serious failings that prevent them from making good choices. Nevertheless, that doesn't absolve them of responsibility when their actions result in harm to others, especially the children in their care.
And yet a 16 year old figured out how to call the police. It's not wholly unreasonable to assume the others couldn't.
I'm not saying their situation wasn't horrible or that they didn't have reasons to be afraid. People are fucked up and incapable of caring for their children for all kinds of reasons. Again, that doesn't absolve them of responsibility when their children get hurt as a result.
DuWayne, their situation, while horrible, is not really like the situation for actual slaves who were hunted down and sometimes brutally murdered for trying to escape. These women faced banishment, not death. They could leave the compound to see doctors, they could and should have appealed for help. And while I feel tremendously sorry for them, I can't rationalize that behavior as the act of competent, loving parent. It's abuse no matter why it happens. You simply do not have the right to chose to harm others because you fear for yourself- especially your children.
Posted by: Leni | April 10, 2008 9:10 PM
@Leni. Here's two arguments I can think of why the mothers' and older children's' responsibility should be significantly lessened.
The first is that it is fairly reasonable to believe that the women and children there were convinced that there was no help outside, and that only bad things could result from trying to escape. We all know that the police would respond to reports of mass child abuse just like they did---coming in and freeing all the children. I doubt it would be that hard to convince residents of the compound, however, that no help would be forthcoming, that everything was legit and tolerated by the authorities. Remember, no dissenting views are allowed. Supposing that were true, provoking your captors would just harm your children, and possibly others, not save them. If they tried and failed, not only would they and their children be punished, I suspect measures against everyone in the compound would get worse. Cults tend to believe in collective punishment, it's very good at inverting moral situations.
The other reason is an argument of competing harms. Yes, perhaps some of the women were effectively collaborators, but I doubt one of the women or girls there would be very willing to call the police at all if they thought that their mothers as well as the men would be ripped away and thrown into jail---perhaps their mothers helped support the system in a 30,000 foot view of it, but they were also probably the only help and shelter the girls had. The authorities at the compound probably tried to convince the women and girls that that is exactly what would happen, making it true would only make situations like this worse in the future.
Posted by: Matthew L. | April 10, 2008 9:35 PM
I feel the same way. The only real bright side I could see is that even if they convert to fundamentalist Baptists, at least they'd be adopting a less extreme form of fundamentalism, which is still a kind progress. I mean, let's face it, the FLDS is so whacked-out that fundamentalist Baptists are rather liberated by comparison (which is really sad).
That's not a bad idea. But isn't there some hostility between mainstream LDS and the breakaway fundamentalist groups? The head honchos in the Mormon church might not be too keen on a plan like that. I could be totally wrong about that, though.
Posted by: Wes | April 10, 2008 9:40 PM
Wes: I also think that there is some sympathy for polygamists among the LDS.
Posted by: wrpd | April 10, 2008 9:46 PM
Regarding the opinions of LDS members, it is interesting to read the Utah newspapers with their coverage of this and the comments made by readers. Most LDS people in Utah just want to say, "Oh, no, no, no, this is not us! These are just some whacky people, but not really LDS." It reminds one of the Catholic reaction to the pedophile priests: "Oh, no, no true Catholic would do such a thing!"
I don't see anyone in Utah offering solutions to reforming these communities though. Maybe Mitt could take on that job?
Posted by: Elizabeth | April 10, 2008 10:40 PM
@ bobz: "Age of consent is 18, with parental consent is 16, and any age is OK if you can convince a Judge it's a good idea."
For the record, the age of consent in Texas is 17.
And concerning your statement of marriage at any age: I read the actual statute and it's a little more complicated than that.
Posted by: Eric | April 10, 2008 10:53 PM
Leni -
And yet a 16 year old figured out how to call the police. It's not wholly unreasonable to assume the others couldn't.
A sixteen year old the authorities have yet to find.
These women faced banishment, not death.
I can't vouch for this particular group, but FLDS cults have killed women and men in the past, for trying to leave.
They could leave the compound to see doctors, they could and should have appealed for help.
They could leave the compound with a male chaperon, leaving their children behind as hostages. And I would suspect that they are also clueless as to their legal rights. It is very likely that they don't know that the police would actually protect them.
I think that you fail to comprehend exactly what it going on here. Read some of the recent comments above this one. These women have been totally and completely brainwashed. Not just a little, their entire lives are there. I will post a longer explanation, when I get a chance, but I have done a fair amount of reading on this topic. It's not that it's "complicated," these people know very little of the outside world. They are just as much a victim as their children are.
Posted by: DuWayne | April 10, 2008 11:47 PM
From what I've read, the mainstream LDS church has completely dissociated itself from the FLDS and seems to consider it almost an entirely separate religion, which in my opinion would require quite a bit of cognitive dissonance. I would imagine that, if Joseph Smith were alive today, he would be a member of the FLDS.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | April 11, 2008 1:06 AM
Ok, so several months ago, I got interested in reading about degenerate communities (i.e. isolated communities that have created a sharply limited gene pool), while in the midst of a H.P. Lovecraft binge. This in turn plugged me into reading on cults that create such communities.
FLDS was the most prominent, having dozens, possibly hundreds of these sorts of congregations in the U.S. They are also among the oldest, if not the oldest.
Let me make this clear. It is common in FLDS cults to eschew such notions as registering births. Some of them have been going for more than a hundred years, there are those who suspect that some of them might be older still. Communities that are made up of anywhere from thirty or so, to maybe a couple hundred members. When they get them started at thirteen, this means that the oldest could conceivably be as many as five or six generations along.
So you have a very shallow gene pool, in which close relations are encouraged to breed. It is not unheard of, for a father to breed with his daughter. There is no question that the degeneration of inbreeding is extremely prevalent. There is occasionally some trading of breeders between congregations, but this is extremely rare given the dangers inherent to opening up to possibly fallen brethren.
You also have people who not only know little if anything of the outside, they also come from sometimes long lines of similar women (and men). They are regularly taught that not only are outsiders evil, but that outsiders would do any and all manners of evil to them, given the chance. They are taught this by people who believe it themselves, because that was what they were taught for generations.
The women who are allowed to go outside, not only have a male chaperon, they are also fortified by the certain knowledge that outsiders are not to be trusted. They aren't afraid of the men with them or the threat to their children, they're terrified of us. Terrified because they have been taught to be for several generations. To be sure, the odd women who happens to start questioning is rapidly put down, usually with beatings, but for the most part the nature of these women is the way it is, because they know absolutely nothing else. Nor did their grandma, great grandma, etc.
And yes, these cults kill. They have to. When people leave, it creates a major threat to the congregation. The way these people live is illegal in every state in the country. When people leave, they are likely to talk to authorities. The congregation cannot have that.
I think the problem is that you aren't grasping the generational nature of these cults. It's not like some college girl getting sucked into. These women have never known anything else. The ones that even make a pretense of legitimacy (i.e. registering births), have there own schooling. Even people who the state is aware of, might never actually see an outsider.
I can honestly say that I feel just as bad for the older women, as I do the children. In some ways even worse. Most of the children will get through this and eventually build something akin to a normal life. The younger they are, the easier it becomes to rebuild.
The older women OTOH, have just seen their entire life shatter. Everything they have known is now gone. Many of them are convinced that they are going to go to hell, because they have been stripped from their husband. It is common for these women to commit suicide, in hopes that it will show their god that they are worthy of their eternal reward. It is also common for these women to end up in institutions. This is not just limited to women who are liberated in the manner these women have been. It is also common among the few who escape, usually to get their female children out. In spite of having an awareness that what was happening to the children was somehow wrong, they are working against an entire lifetime of knowing it was right and good.
These women have lived a life that neither of us can really conceive of. I have never been sexually abused, but I can empathize with those who have. I can try to see the world and sexuality through their eyes. Having had a few partners who were at one time sexually abused, I have pretty good comprehension of what they went through. But this, this is so far beyond "mere" childhood sexual abuse, it's like comparing apples and drain cleaner.
I should also note that while the men are also brainwashed, they do get to go outside (most of them). They see what the rest of the world is like. There is a significant difference in their experience, not the least being that they are the exploiters.
Posted by: DuWayne | April 11, 2008 1:31 AM
What are the genetic effects of this inbreeding? How is it that they haven't simply been wiped out by disease or the cumlative effects of recessive genes?
Not to mention the tensions between competeing groups of beta males (and thier alles/families &etc) all tring to prove how much holier they are than thou. Boggles the mind. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | April 11, 2008 2:34 AM
Ed,
If the girl's identity was known why have they failed to find her among the girls they have taken into custody? And since when is the mere presence of a pregnant teenage girl evidence of a crime?
If that were true you could forcibly remove thousands of pregnant teenagers from homes all over America.
As I said I have no sympathy for child rapists but that doesn't mean that authorities should be given carte blanch to ignore the 4th amendment.
Maybe everything was done in accordance with the law but at the moment there remain questions about the validity of the warrant and the scope of the search and seizure. It is obvious that the repugnant nature of the FLDS community has struck an emotional chord with the posters here. That should not be used to excuse improper police actions.
I think it should be remembered that if even the vilest criminals are denied due process it is a threat to all of our rights.
Posted by: Lance | April 11, 2008 9:31 AM
Where said girl is below the legal age of consent.
Posted by: DaveL | April 11, 2008 9:46 AM
It is disgusting and embarrassing that it took a complaint for all of this to finally happen. Arrests should have been made the second anyone knew this was going on.
Posted by: mlf | April 11, 2008 10:02 AM
DaveL,
As I said, there are pregnant teenage girls all over the country. I don't see police raids into trailer parks and inner city neighborhoods to "rescue" these young ladies and prosecute those that may have inseminated them.
Posted by: Lance | April 11, 2008 10:03 AM
I think the reason the Baptist Church was used as shelter when removing the women and children from compound was because San Angelo and its county just don't have other facilities. I saw reports that 400+ children were removed with their mothers, that's a lot of people to house.
Posted by: BC | April 11, 2008 10:11 AM
Actually, Lance, that's considered "statutory rape," and yes, there are attempts to prosecute those who impregnate the girls, and to force/encourage them to take responsibility for the kids they helped create.
How much longer are you going to ignore the facts and pretend that "there remain questions?"
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 11, 2008 10:26 AM
Re: Lance
Forced marriage + brainwashing/threatening with the intent to convince girls that their husbands can have sex with them whenever they want = should (does?) equal rape. I don't think that is a typical situation for most teen pregnancy cases in this country. Regardless, it shouldn't be tolerated.
Also, it was explained on NPR yesterday that she was most likely quietly and quickly moved to another location. As is typical protocol for those that speak out like she did. Which, shouldn't surprise anyone. Damn it I hope she's safe...
Posted by: mlf | April 11, 2008 10:26 AM
I don't know enough about the specifics to comment on the 4th amendment issue. But I'd like to add my voice to those who object to the "polygamist cult" label. It's like "atheist China" statements regarding Tibet or "gay child molester" stories. While all of those statements may have been technically accurate, they draw inflammatory and misleading connections.
If you must spice up "cult," how about calling them a "child rape cult" instead?
Posted by: Abby Normal | April 11, 2008 10:33 AM
Sadie Morrison: "From what I've read, the mainstream LDS church has completely dissociated itself from the FLDS and seems to consider it almost an entirely separate religion, which in my opinion would require quite a bit of cognitive dissonance. I would imagine that, if Joseph Smith were alive today, he would be a member of the FLDS."
According to the LDS members I know Mormons roundly denounce the FLDS. They do consider it a completly different regligion, but that's really not the only bit of cognitive dissonance they have going on.
Posted by: jba | April 11, 2008 10:45 AM
Rev AJB: "There are those of us who are mainline Christian who do not believe that mainline Mormonism IS Christian-let alone a nutjob sect like this one."
OT, but out of curiousity, why don't you think mormons are christian? What do you think makes someone christian?
Posted by: jba | April 11, 2008 10:50 AM
Why is it "cognitive dissonance" when one kind of Mormon calls a completely different kind of Mormon a "different religion?" To the extent that a certain set of values and rules is an integral part of one's "religion," a religion with clearly different values is indeed a "different religion," even if the deity's name is the same.
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 11, 2008 11:09 AM
Raging Bee:
Why is it "cognitive dissonance" when one kind of Mormon calls a completely different kind of Mormon a "different religion?"
Because, presumably, both versions are based on the same text?
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | April 11, 2008 11:44 AM
Lance wrote:
They didn't know the girl's identity. As I understand it, she didn't give them her name. They may, in fact, already have her and not know it. Remember, they've taken hundreds of young girls out of there.
You keep dishonestly pretending that this is the only information they have. First of all, they have pregnant girls who are not merely teenagers, they are below the age of consent. Second, they have first hand reports that those girls are being impregnated by adult men (and the fact that there are not lots of teenage boys around but are lots of adult men around further supports that conclusion). Third, they already knew that this was a compound full of people who are followers of a religion that advocates precisely this behavior (these are followers of Warren Jeffs). Take all three of those things together and there is only one logical conclusion. Bear in mind, they'll still have to provide more evidence than that in court, but the only way to get that evidence is to get those girls out of the house where they can interview them without the threat of retaliation and where they can perform DNA tests. But there is clearly more than enough evidence to prove probable cause here.
The 4th amendment has been followed to the letter. They showed probable cause, they got a warrant and they acted on that warrant. It will continue to be followed, as will the 5th, 6th and 7th.
And if you actually had a coherent argument that due process had been denied, this would be relevant.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | April 11, 2008 12:12 PM
Sadie: neither version of Mormonism is ENTIRELY based on any one text, whatever their adherents may say to the contrary. Like all other religions that claim to be "based" on one holy text, they also have roots in the teachings of individual leaders, and in the history, circumstances and prejudices of their followers. It is perfectly clear from their actions that "mainstream" Mormons and the FLDS are indeed based on distinctly different beliefs and prejudices; so even though one book may be part of the "bases" of both beliefs, it is still fair to say they're two different religions.
Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all "based" in part on the Old Testament; but that doesn't make them the same religion.
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 11, 2008 12:30 PM
Lance is completely blowing smoke. Where there is an allegation that a child is in danger, the 4th Amendment does not require a warrant. When I was taking CrimPro there were about eight circumstances where the warrant requirement was waived, this is one of them. The authorities have so far exercised far more restraint than is required, at least as far as the news pieces I've read.
Posted by: kehrsam | April 11, 2008 12:32 PM
You asked how pregnant teenagers could in itself be evidence of a crime. It is evidence of their having had sexual intercourse which, if they are under the age of consent, is a crime.
Whether or not it's a crime that is evenly enforced doesn't change that fact.
Posted by: DaveL | April 11, 2008 12:40 PM
Raging Bee posted:
IANAL and I welcome correction from anyone who knows more than I do, but as I understand it, if a 13-year-old girl and a 13-year-old boy copulate it is generally not "statutory rape" (state laws are known to vary, so this may well differ in different states). If the 13-year-old girl has sex with an 18-year-old boy, it generally is. And if she is forced to "marry" a 49-year-old man, that is certainly despicable as well as illegal. AFAICT, what Lance said in the post that Raging Bee was responding to is that the presence of a pregnant 13-year-old girl is insufficient to distinguish these cases.
Among the (many) things that I do not know is what was contained in any warrent that the Texas authorities may have used in this case. AFAIK, any law enforcement agency worth its salt will/should respond (and promptly) to a call from someone who says she is a victim being held against her will and I don't have a problem with this. I don't see any indication that Lance has expressed a problem with that either. (There may be history that I am unaware of.)
What Lance has said appears to be that the basis for the police actions is (as yet) unclear. He specifically said:
I cannot claim to have deep knowledge about Warren Jeffs or his father Rulon and their cult, but what seems to be generally known puts them firmly in the category of "despicable" in my book. OTOH, I'm not at all sure that "generally known" is adequate for a warrent. It may sometimes be, but as I said, IANAL. Furthermore, like pretty much everybody here, I have to be glad that this "community" is being investigated as well as that the kids are being protected while the investigation is going on.
Nevertheless, like Lance, I do have a nagging doubt (or, perhaps "worry" might be a better word) about whether this particular raid is entirely on the good side of "legal". Unfortunately (and I wish I could remember who said it or enough of the exact words to google for it) the tough constitutional civil rights cases that establish the legal precedents for all of us are all too often decided only when law enforcement officials overstep their bounds busting someone who "deserves" it. I'd really hate to see a case like this, where the rapists sure deserve to be busted, founder on constitutional issues based on rights that I want to keep intact for us as well as them.
Sorry for such a long post by a heretofore lurker on this blog.
Paul
Posted by: prn | April 11, 2008 1:00 PM
Not only does Lance not know the law, he doesn't know his neighbors--the Amish around Nappanne, Indiana, either.
The Amish are anabaptists--meaning they believe in adult baptism, rather than child baptism. The reason for that is that they believe you have to make a conscious choice to enter the community of God (you can't just be washed into it on a baptismal flood as a baby).
Consequently, they encourage young adults to take a period of "rumspringa," when they experience a little bit of the world outside their communities, then decide whether to get baptized and remain in the community, or leave it. (The choice is pretty stark, and it's no surprise that most stay.)
But forcibly marrying 13 year old girls to middle-aged men would be a serious violation of their theology, whereas it seems to be a fundamental part of the theology of the FLDS.
So Lance is not only wrong on the crim pro, he's chosen an absolutely fallacious analogy as well.
For pete's sake, Lance, you live in Nappanee! Learn something about your neighbors! (I'm a Hoosier from around Amish country, too--I have to drive slow for a few miles when I'm going to my mom's house, so I don't run down anyone in a buggy.)
Posted by: James Hanley | April 11, 2008 1:08 PM
cult, not a cult, oh what do other cults do...
This is so freaking beside the point! Who cares "why" this is going on? It is smelling very much like a criminal cartel designed for the purposes of child slavery and prostitution. Why not treat it this way?
Posted by: DrugMonkey | April 11, 2008 1:42 PM
DJ -
You would be amazed at how long inbreeding can be sustained. When doing the reading that brought FLDS and similar cults to my attention, I also read about a lot of degenerate communities (some are still probably waiting to be found).
There was one such community found in Appalachia in the early nineties. More than three quarters of the population were never registered at birth. There was evidence of widespread mental retardation, given that the gene pool was limited to a very few people. This wasn't a cult, it was just a tiny community hidden away in an extremely remote region, all but forgotten by their neighbors.
Lance -
If the girl's identity was known why have they failed to find her among the girls they have taken into custody?
Knowing how FLDS cults have been known operate, there is the distinct possibility that she's dead.
And since when is the mere presence of a pregnant teenage girl evidence of a crime?
If that were the only evidence, it would indeed be very little to go on. But that is not the case.
Maybe everything was done in accordance with the law but at the moment there remain questions about the validity of the warrant and the scope of the search and seizure.
Like what? If the police got an anonymous tip that I was brutally beating my child, they would act on that tip. If and when that tip led to a raid on my house, there would be nothing wrong with them busting me for having, say, a bunch of crack, scales and baggies. As long as they were found within areas that the warrant gave them a right to search, it would be entirely legit.
That should not be used to excuse improper police actions.
Please explain the improper police actions, because you have yet to explain what they did wrong.
As I said, there are pregnant teenage girls all over the country. I don't see police raids into trailer parks and inner city neighborhoods to "rescue" these young ladies and prosecute those that may have inseminated them.
First of all, older men who commit statutory rape are routinely imprisoned for it, often after the police have raided their residence for more evidence.
Secondly, a better analogy would be the police raiding the homes of men who keep young women prisoner and regularly rape them. Given that the authorities manage to find out about such situations, you can guarandamntee that they will raid that house. While thankfully it's very rare today, this has happened many times in this country. Probably the most "common" being brothels that use children.
Finally, in many jurisdictions, males who are either minors or very close in age to their minor sexual partner are charged with statutory rape.
Posted by: DuWayne | April 11, 2008 2:02 PM
Lance: if you really want to wax righteous about abuse of police power and violations of the Fourth Amendment, you'd be well advised to concentrate on our War on (Some) Drugs (and the Sick Old Noncombattants Who Use Them). There's plenty more material there. This raid in Texas doesn't even come close.
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 11, 2008 2:20 PM
James Hanley,
Perhaps you should make sure you have read my post correctly before spouting off about my argument. First of all I said I "used to" live in Nappanee.
Also please show me anything in my statement about the Amish that is incorrect. I said that "young women are heavily influenced to marry within the community and at very young ages". Data collected by the Amish themselves shows that the average age of marriage for women is 20.
The Rumspring is a way to let off some adolescent steam but you would be mistaken if you thought that it provided freedom to leave the community. The vast majority of the Amish, especially the young women, quickly return to the fold and get married.
I suppose that puts them over the 13 to 14 range of the FLDS but do you really suppose that 17 and 18 year olds that have been indoctrinated to view the outside world as evil really have much of a choice to make an informed opinion about marriage?
I am not trying to equate the customs of the Amish with those of the FLDS, just making the point that being part of a community that holds different values from the main stream can lead to suspicion and persecution and does not negate your constitutional rights.
Posted by: Lance | April 11, 2008 2:23 PM
Statutory sex offenses vary widely between jurisdictions, with some having very little tolerance. Here in NC we are on the lenient side. If both parties are 13 or older and separated in age by no more than four years, it's ok. Over four years, or if either party is 12 or younger, guilty.
Posted by: kehrsam | April 11, 2008 2:25 PM
First you say that the raid wasn't based on an "anonymous" tip then you say that they don't know the name of the girl. Clearly one of your statements in in error.
Also please don't refer to my statements as dishonest. I may very well be mistaken about the details of the case but to refer to my remarks as "dishonest" or "pretending" implies unsavory motives that you cannot and should not presume.
As far as whether the search and seizure were in compliance with the 4th amendment I submit that you have no more idea than I do since the application and affidavit in support of the warrant have been sealed and will remain so according to the statement issued yesterday by the US attorney Richard Roper.
You have expressed concern with police searches and seizures in the past. This case is one of extraordinarily invasive action by the Texas authorities and I hope you agree that they had better have had compelling evidence and acted in accordance with the law before executing this drastic action.
Also, I hope you would agree that we shouldn't just assume that the Texas authorities acted legally because we find the community that was invaded morally repugnant.
Posted by: Lance | April 11, 2008 2:47 PM
I am not trying to equate the customs of the Amish with those of the FLDS...
Then why did you bring the Amish bit into this conversation, despite the obvious and glaring differences between the two? The "point" you're claiming you're trying to make thereby, depends on the two cases being similar; which, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, is not the case.
Also, I hope you would agree that we shouldn't just assume that the Texas authorities acted legally because we find the community that was invaded morally repugnant.
Given that no one here shows any sign of making this assumption, I think we're more agreed on this than you seem to think.
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 11, 2008 3:27 PM
Lance wrote:
There is an enormous difference between an anonymous tip from someone saying "so and so broke the law" and a victim calling from inside the place saying "I've been the victim of this crime." The latter is not considered an "anonymous tip" because it comes directly from a victim. And it more than enough to establish probable cause and get a warrant, especially in light of the other evidence in the case that you conveniently ignore.
Sorry, but when you claim that the only basis for a conclusion of criminality is "the mere presence of a pregnant teenage girl", you are not dealing with the evidence honestly. You're conveniently ignoring the testimony of the girl on the inside, the fact that these girls were below the age of consent, the fact that the only men around who could impregnate them are adults and the fact that we know that this group advocates impregnating underage girls in "spiritual marriages" from their own past history. Taken as a whole there is no reasonable question that the probable cause standard has been more than met in this case.
This is false. The affidavit to obtain the warrant signed under oath by the Texas state employee who took the phone calls from the girl inside the compound has already been made public. It's linked to in in this very post.
No shit. That doesn't mean I have to agree with you that every police search is unwarranted. The searches and seizures I've written about in the past are ones that do not meet the constitutional standards; this one clearly does.
There is nothing "extraordinarily invasive" about this situation other than the sheer numbers involved, but that is irrelevant; the only reason there are large numbers of kids involved is because these sick bastards have victimized large numbers of kids. There is nothing qualitatively unusual about the situation at all. Where there is clear probable cause, as there is in this case, this is precisely how the government should proceed - getting a legal warrant from a judge, executing that warrant and taking action on anything illegal going on there.
Of course I would agree on that, but you haven't made even a minimally coherent case that this is an accurate description of what has happened here. You just conveniently ignore the several lines of evidence that establish probable cause and pretend they don't exist. We have a group that has openly declared that they believe young girls should be married to older men when they reach puberty. Their leader has already been found guilty of doing that over and over again. We have the direct testimony of a victim inside the group detailing that the group does exactly what they have advocated publicly. And we have a compound full of older men and pregnant 13 and 14 year old girls. For crying out loud, what more do you need to see to admit that there's probable cause here?
Posted by: Ed Brayton | April 11, 2008 3:53 PM
By the way, a second affidavit in support of a second warrant for search and arrest is also publicly available. You can see it here. It contains a long list of statements from young girls inside the compound about who fathered their children, all of them being older adult men.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | April 11, 2008 3:59 PM
Possibly because they haven't checked every ditch or hastily dug plot of land yet?
Seriously, the record of cults like this killing informers and "traitors" is pretty well-established.
Posted by: Azkyroth | April 11, 2008 3:59 PM
Azkyroth -
Seriously, the record of cults like this killing informers and "traitors" is pretty well-established.
Hell, the record of other FLDS cults killing informers is pretty well established.
Posted by: DuWayne | April 11, 2008 4:04 PM
I have to agree with Ed on this one. I distrust government in general and am a strong believer in religious freedom. But there is no reason at all for little girls to be raped. It seems like all procedures were followed. The Constitution does not say no search and seizure it says no illegal ones. Was this local police or some Federal branch raiding? I am not so sure the Feds need to be involved in all this stuff all the time but someone does need to protect kids. Freedom of religion has its limits. This obviously falls into the no brainer category regardless of property rights or religious issues.
DUwayne,
Off the subject I did not ignore your offer of some help with some children books on evolution. By the time I saw it it was an old post. Can you give me your email address again? I did not know you were Ed's brother. Sorry for not getting back to you I have been real busy lately. I started back teaching again and it is taking up a lot of my time.
Posted by: King of Ireland | April 11, 2008 4:25 PM
KoI -
duwayne.brayton at gmail.com
No worries about not getting back to me, I do the same to others at times.
Posted by: DuWayne | April 11, 2008 4:40 PM
Ed,
As I said I may be mistaken on the facts. I am not however being dishonest.
Posted by: Lance | April 11, 2008 5:00 PM
In that respect they are truly not religious at all.
Ah, the no true Scotsman fallacy. I had't seen it in a while, I was beginning to miss it.
Data collected by the Amish themselves shows that the average age of marriage for women is 20.
Which is the same as the average age of marriage for American women in general during the 1940's/1950's. How shocking! How degenerate!
Posted by: Graculus | April 11, 2008 6:45 PM
We've gotten away from the ridiculous military base comparison that prompted this post in the first place, I see, but -- just to let folks know: I'm female. I grew up on military bases. (My dad was in the Navy). We were free to leave any time. It was fun growing up on the bases -- one of the last places in the US where kids can go to the store by themselves and be safe. And nobody was going around raping 13 year old girls and calling it marriage. When I grew up, I married a guy in the Navy. Well, OK, that part was a bit like this cult I guess -- but we met at college and fell in love! It just happened, I swear! I was WAY over thirteen, I promise! Anyway, we frequently lived on military bases, had a daughter and a son, and continued to be able to leave the bases whenever we wanted, and not to observe girls being "married" off at 13. And in spite of his participation in the military industrial complex, my husband continues to be a really sweet non-authoritarian guy, thanking his stars he retired before the current stupid evil Iraq war.
Posted by: DRK | April 11, 2008 8:11 PM
Texas Public Radio reported this evening that there is an outbreak of chickenpox among the children taken from the Yearning for Zion Ranch. Apparently none of them has been vaccinated. I haven't been able to confirm this report in other sources.
Also, some of the caretakers of these children in San Angelo say that the kids are asking for raw milk, as that's what they're used to drinking. The sect had very little interaction with the townspeople in Eldorado and the surrounding rural community, and maintained their own orchards and dairy (and apparently an abhorrence of pasteurization).
Posted by: Barn Owl | April 11, 2008 8:14 PM
O-kay, no pasteurized milk; so are they testing the cows and the milk, or are they just winging it, figuring that god will take care of the tiny critters? Apparently the children are not vaccinated either, or the medical records are unclear. And speaking of records, these FLDS people may have some trouble getting their children back if they can't prove who their biological children are; don't expect CPS to just take the word of the adults. Now the girls who are pregnant may have better luck because the child and the birth may be properly documented, but all those toddlers running around-- who knows who they really belong to. What a hornet's nest of loonies!
I am expecting that any day now central Texas will be declared a disaster area so that federal money can be poured in there to deal with this crisis. The people in San Angelo are already moaning about how much a day it is costing them. Maybe this is a job for FEMA?
Posted by: Elizabeth | April 12, 2008 12:28 AM
Duwayne - The village that time forgot. Wow, mindblowing. Did they play a lot of banjo? ;)
DRK - Glad it worked out well for you & yours. Using the logic of Butler Shaffer, perhaps we should note the parallels between fundie child-rape factories and jails. High walls, strict rules, secretcy &etc. Sheesh, what moroon. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | April 12, 2008 2:48 AM
Okay, maybe someone suggested thus during an earlier post, and I just didn't see it - but when I heard that the 16-year-old victim had not been located, my first assumption was NOT that she had been killed. After all, it looked like the cops moved pretty quick on that tip, leaving little time for the cult to detect the "traitor," much less successfully hide her body.
Instead, I assumed that the girl on the phone was a cop's daughter, or a young-sounding female cop, tired of waiting for the evidence they needed to take down this canker sore on their neighborhood. If done properly, it would be very difficult to differentiate from the story as claimed.
Yeah, I know, that's nearly a "black helicopter" conspiracy theory - but it only requires the efforts of one angry cop to carry it out.
Posted by: BobApril | April 12, 2008 6:17 AM
It's actually simpler than you know, BobApril. I made that call.
Posted by: kehrsam | April 12, 2008 8:57 AM
I'd like to point out that the inbred FLDS community blew into Texas from points west, the Utah-Arizona border to be precise. Church members purchased a ranch near Eldorado, TX in 2003, and set up their compound. Land, especially ranch property, is relatively cheap in West Texas, and you can find a remote piece of property off some county road without too much effort or cash. Undoubtedly that's one of the reasons we end up with all sorts of nutjob cults setting up shop in the state.
Law enforcement in Utah and Arizona failed to do anything significant to deal with the FLDS child rapists after the 1953 Short Creek raid. The FLDS men have had 50 years to abuse young women and establish fumarase deficiency in their offspring. Sure, there have been a few arrests and convictions of individual members by Arizona and Nevada law enforcement, but nothing like the recent raid here in Texas. Were the residents of Utah and Arizona in denial about what was going on in the Hildale-Colorado City community?
Posted by: Barn Owl | April 12, 2008 12:41 PM
If the girl's identity was known why have they failed to find her among the girls they have taken into custody?
Maybe the girl's identity IS known, and they're pretending otherwise (for now) to protect her from retaliation. If she's a minor, that would not be very far outside the norm.
DRK: Thanks for putting in a good word for the military. Between that stupid war and the real crime problems within their ranks, they really don't need this bogus guilt-by-contrived-similarity link to child-rape as well.
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 12, 2008 1:19 PM
Hey, I have an idea -- can't the President declare all of the FLDS men "enemy combattants" and send them off to Gitmo? That would certainly dispense with any silly probable-cause objections. And a little waterboarding might clear up who fathered who -- if they cared enough to remember who they raped, that is.
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 12, 2008 1:23 PM
DJ -
It is considered quite likely that there are still communities like that, waiting to be discovered. There are also still communities that are mostly populated by people who come from a fairly limited gene pool, even though they are not really "lost" communities.
It should also be noted that the worse degeneration exists in the eastern portions of the U.S. Which makes sense when you consider that the east was settled by Europeans long before they made it to the west.
BobApril -
I too, am glad to see you back.
While I wouldn't deny the possibility that your hypothesis is correct, it would be far from my first assumption. I wouldn't rule out the notion that the police encouraged their informer to orchestrate the scenario, by getting the young lady to call in - probably making it possible for her to do so. But I would think that the cops would be aware that if they did it the way you describe and it was found out, it could very well lead to the release of the men involved.
It is not unreasonable that either the young lady was caught by cult leaders and killed, or she just hasn't identified herself as the caller. The first would fit the M.O. of these sorts of cults, including FLDS cults. The second wouldn't be unreasonable if the girl is afraid of reprisals from other cult members.
I am just very hesitant to make illicit actions my first assumption, without any evidence to suggest it as the case.
Posted by: DuWayne | April 12, 2008 1:55 PM
Bob Aril,
I share your distrust of authority. The copy of the original request for a warrant to remove the one girl that was used to first enter the community does not list the girl's name. It only lists the name of Lynn McFadden a supervisor for the department of family and child protective services that vouched to the information.
Maybe it was all done on the up and up, but I want to see evidence that this girl exists and that she actually made the initial complaint.
Posted by: Lance | April 12, 2008 3:14 PM
Lance: Ed has repeatedly addressed your complaints about the original complaint and its adequacy as the basis for a search warrant. Why do you repeatedly refuse to respond to what he said? It's really getting tiresome to see you repeatedly saying "Yes, but..." and then repeating the same "concern" over and over.
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 12, 2008 3:42 PM
Lance -
Your never going to see the girls name. Rape victims, especially minors, are protected by shield laws. Look at it from this perspective; Say you have a minor daughter (or son for that matter) and she is raped, would you like her name to get dragged into the media? I sure as fuck wouldn't.
Let me ask you this, would you prefer that these child rapists were allowed to continue with their activities? To further the point; Lets say that your suspicions are correct. We find out soon that it was a bullshit tip and the entire search was illegal. We also find out that the young girls have indeed been repeatedly raped and impregnated by much older men. The men will go free, due to the violation of their constitutional rights. The girls OTOH, are going to still be taken away from this horrific lifestyle.
So in this scenario, the cost of violating the rights of the adult cultists, is that they go free. But the result is that these little girls are now free from their captivity and the world is aware of the actions of these men. Do you still have a problem with it? Because for my part, I think that is still a reasonable outcome. No matter how much I would like to see those men in prison, I am far more concerned for the welfare of those children.
Posted by: DuWayne | April 12, 2008 3:42 PM
DuWayne, I'm not going to argue that they aren't brainwashed or that cults aren't dangerous and horrible. That's obviously true and I'm not arguing otherwise. I appreciate the effort, but you don't need to explain to me why cults are bad and we should sympathize with victims.
That is probably true in many of the cases. But it certainly isn't necessarily true of every case. And it does not absolve every adult female in that compound of their legal and moral responsibility to protect their children. I'm not saying I know exactly where that line would be, but it has to be somewhere. Being a victim and being an abuser are not mutually exclusive.
And to be frank, while I sympathize a lot more with the women, I am bothered by the fact that we don't expect them to know or behave better, but we do expect that of the men. That seems like a serious double standard to me.
Posted by: Leni | April 12, 2008 4:59 PM
I agree with Leni completely...
If the women/mothers consider the activities that happened to them when they were young girls to be abusive, then they should be very protective of their children, doing everything possible to keep them from being raped.
But if they consider child rape that occurs during a "spiritual marriage" to be normal (like the men consider such behavior to be acceptable), then they should still be charged with a crime for allowing all of this to happen just like the men will be.
Posted by: doctorgoo | April 12, 2008 5:20 PM
Right, DuWayne! What is important here is to break this cycle of abuse. There are about 500 women and children from the Eldorado ranch under the care of CPS in San Angelo now, but there are an estimated 10,000 other FLDS cult members living in Utah, Arizona, Canada, and other places, who are practicing the same child abuse and indoctrination. The authorities in Utah have managed to get Warren Jeffs, the head honcho, into jail, and have managed to take over the finances of the Hilldale and Colorado City groups so that those people can be transitioned from a communist economy and taught more independent thinking. (Similar problems occurred in East Germany IIRC when it was freed and united with West Germany; people who have grown up under communism must be taught to take care of themselves.)
I really do wish that the leaders of the Mormon church, the LDS in Salt Lake City, would take some responsibility here for re-educating these people. They need to send in their missionaries, but instead they are just retreating from the problems and attempting to distance themselves from any association with the FLDS. They are just abandoning these women and girls to their fate. That really does not speak well for the LDS.
Posted by: Elizabeth | April 12, 2008 5:20 PM
Elizabeth wrote:
That's not a bad idea, but who knows if they would even be let in. My guess: if they are male or older females, no.
Even more than that, they need access to legal and mental services. But I suppose less insane church members are better than no one.
Doctors are are pretty much the best opportunity they have. That's true of a lot of abused women. Sometimes that is the only time they are with another person in private that the abuser isn't privy too.
Posted by: Leni | April 12, 2008 5:37 PM
Lance, what would you accept as proof that this raid was undertaken according to procedure on a reasonable basis of probable cause?
Posted by: Azkyroth | April 12, 2008 5:39 PM
Lance, I have to note that if the abuse of authority happened as I suggested, then:
1. it was probably abuse of authority at the lowest possible level - probably a beat cop. Doesn't make it right, but is not the same as the horrible county-wide conspiracy that you seem to imply.
2. It can't be proven - making such a tip indistinguishable from a legitimate panicked call from an actual teen in trouble would be a trivial exercise. Something as simple as as pay-as-you-go cell phone purchased for cash, then used outside the compound - that could be attributed to a cell phone owned by a (male) compound occupant, picked up by the teen. The number would be untraceable, and the cell tower would match. The FBI would be hard pressed to to prove it false, much less some podunk county sheriff.
3. As Kehrsam humorously pointed out, it could just as easily have been done by a concerned citizen, connected with neither the cult nor the police. Or, as a friend suggested, by someone promoting a book - she said someone released one this week.
In any event, who made the call is a matter of speculation. The police who RESPONDED to the call acted correctly, responsibly, and above all, legally. My idle curiosity about the possible abuse on one end of the phone is not meant to suggest ANY abuse of power on the other end.
Posted by: BobApril | April 12, 2008 5:55 PM
Bee,
The original affidavit just states that a government official says that they received a complaint. That was enough to generate a warrant to remove the one girl. The police have said that they do not, as far as they know have the one girl.
Everything that happened after that initial warrant was predicated on the validity of the information presented to a judge to get that warrant.
If there was not sufficient evidence that an actual crime had been committed that makes that warrant illegally obtained and would exclude any and all evidence gathered afterwards.
I have repeatedly said that maybe everything is fine and done in accordance with all laws but I still want to see evidence that the initial warrant was based on something more than the hearsay evidence of a government official.
As far as the "War on Drugs" is concerned I believe adult drug use should be legal. I think the militarization of the FBI, DEA, Customs Dept. etc. is a dangerous consequence of this so called "War on Drugs" and should be reversed.
Posted by: Lance | April 12, 2008 5:56 PM
BobApril,
I am not implying any "conspiracy" just wanting to make sure that the law was followed. I have been very consistent in saying that I just want to know that there was probable cause for the initial warrant and also for the second warrant that resulted in every single building in the entire compound including their temple being searched, records being confiscated and over four hundred children being forcibly placed in the custody of the state.
I hardly think that makes me an anti-government conspiracy nut.
Posted by: Lance | April 12, 2008 6:08 PM
Aside from the obvious about pedophile rapists using religion as an excuse, Butler Shaffer's post comparing the Texas compound to a military base is a disgusting attempt at an insult to all of our men and women in uniform and to our military as an institution. He should be ashamed of himself, or if he isn't, then he should be put to shame in public for it. And he should try reading that post at any burger stand, pub, or other social hang-out spot near a military base and see what kind of earfull he gets from our soldiers and their families.
Posted by: g347 | April 12, 2008 6:40 PM
Re Lance
I think that Mr. Lance is starting to get into Larry Fafarman/Collin Brandemuehl territory. His blathering has been answered on several occasions on this thread by Mr. Brayton but he still continues to reiterate the same old baloney.
Posted by: SLC | April 12, 2008 6:50 PM
Lance, you and some lawyer on ABC News seem to be all in a twitter that all this evidence is going to be suppressed and these rapists are going to walk or even sue the state of Texas for unlawful entry or religious persecution or something. There are now three search warrants: the initial one based on the phone calls and other suspicions; the second one which is posted at Smoking Gun based on interviewing a bunch of pregnant underaged mothers (that's the one they used to get all this documentary evidence); and the third one, a federal warrant which is sealed (so nobody knows yet what's that's for). According to what I read yesterday, the attorneys for the men who claim to be in charge, Merrill Jessop et al., have conceded the issue of the warrants and have agreed to a special master who will look at all the seized documents and select those that are of a purely religious nature and have no bearing on the case, although Judge Walther will have the final say on what's to be admitted.
They have a bunch of pregnant underaged girls there; it's going to be pretty hard to suppress that evidence! Next step I guess is convening a grand jury in Schleicher County.
Unless these guys run off like Jeffs did, they will be convicted, and then maybe the state could confiscate that YFZ Ranch and temporarily turn it into a prison farm where these FLDS guys could do hard labor tearing down that damn fertility temple stone by stone-- without heavy machinery. Seems like fit punishment to me.
Posted by: Elizabeth | April 12, 2008 6:51 PM
Azkyroth,
"Lance, what would you accept as proof that this raid was undertaken according to procedure on a reasonable basis of probable cause?"
Pretty simple really, if the police were to say that they have the girl in custody and that she is corroborating the information used to obtain the warrant.
As I have said, several times, I'm all for shutting these clowns down and prosecuting them to the fullest extent of the law. I just don't want to let the authorities "cut corners" just because the alleged offenders are members of a highly unpopular sect.
DuWayne,
I'm sorry but I'm never going to condone the police knowingly violating the constitution. If the police had probable cause to believe that a crime was committed then they were within the law. If they didn't have probable cause they had no business obtaining a warrant. It is that simple. Concocting post-hoc theoretical situations that rely on appeals to emotion using the welfare of "children" as justification does not change this simple fact.
Posted by: Lance | April 12, 2008 7:26 PM
Leni -
I'm not saying I know exactly where that line would be, but it has to be somewhere.
I suspect that it lies in their mental competency. I have no real problem with them being charged as accessories, because I suspect that most, if not all will be found incompetent.
And to be frank, while I sympathize a lot more with the women, I am bothered by the fact that we don't expect them to know or behave better, but we do expect that of the men. That seems like a serious double standard to me.
I have no doubt that some of them will be found mentally incompetent as well. But for the most part, the men in these cults actually get some real world savvy. They actually get out and see how other people live. They are, most of them, brainwashed as well, but not to the same extent as the women.
doctorgoo -
If the women/mothers consider the activities that happened to them when they were young girls to be abusive, then they should be very protective of their children, doing everything possible to keep them from being raped.
Like doing what? They aren't going to have a lot fo luck escaping with very many kids. Many of them are probably unaware of exactly which kids are theirs. Compound this with the fact that even if they thought the experience was terrible, they have also been brainwashed to believe that it is god's will. Not in a going to church on Sunday and having the rest of the week for themselves. They lived it every day of their lives, the same being true of their mother and hers, etc.
But if they consider child rape that occurs during a "spiritual marriage" to be normal (like the men consider such behavior to be acceptable), then they should still be charged with a crime for allowing all of this to happen just like the men will be.
It's not just that they believe it to be normal. They believe that the rest of the world operates in some similar fashion. They don't even know that if they could escape, they would find help on the outside. Indeed, they are taught that the outside is much worse.
Lance -
Honestly, I don't care if you'll ever condone it. But I would ask you this; If it were your thirteen year old child being brutally raped, would you really give a flying fuck if the cops were acting within the law to save your child?
Aside from that, your skepticism is looking more and more ridiculous by the moment, as it is becoming increasingly obvious that they were acting in a legitimate manner. Or are you still holding out on pictures and a name of the girl who made the initial call? Because gods forbid that we actually let her be safe and not have her name plastered on the nightly news.
Posted by: DuWayne | April 12, 2008 8:11 PM
DuWayne wrote:
...followed by this (to Lance):
You come pretty close to making my point for me. In general, I don't see how you think that wives of child abusers should get a free pass because they were abused too. Just because a mother was abused herself absolutely does NOT mean that it's okay for her to enable others to continue the abuse on others. In fact, as you alluded to yourself, they are in a position to know exactly how much pain and humiliation these kids face... and yet they do nothing to stop it.
But back to your quote directed at me... escaping with kids certainly isn't the only possible option. And while it might be extremely difficult to find a way to communicate with the outside, I doubt that it's impossible. Unless you've had some experience living in such a cult, I cannot see how you can say for sure that it's so impossible. (I mean, certainly once a month an idiot guy would leave his cell phone lying about unguarded... or something else that would make it possible for a mother to protect the children from being raped.)
You claim that they are for the most part "mentally incompetent" due to the abuse they received themselves. How in the world do you come to that conclusion? And since then is this defense as effective as you claim? (you wrote "I have no real problem with them being charged as accessories, because I suspect that most, if not all will be found incompetent.") I mean, if a person were to brutally beat his kids, and then claim "but my father abused me as a kid, too" as a defense, this wouldn't go far.
And being "brainwashed to believe that it is god's will" doesn't fly either. It isn't like they are being physically abused or rape at every possible moment. They get into a daily routine, and try to make the best of their extremely shitty lives. They have the opportunity to spend time with other women (wives) and discuss their lives. And since they've been abused themselves, they have a greater ability to empathize with the victims. For them to ignore this and do absolutely NOTHING to protect them is indeed criminal.
Posted by: doctorgoo | April 12, 2008 8:48 PM
Ok DuWayne,
You're right. Screw the constitution and castrate any son of a bitch that we think might have done something to some one that might be a teenage girl. Let's forget about making sure that warrants that are used to search scores of homes, offices and religious buildings and to take custody of hundreds of children are based on real evidence.
If some government official says that they got a call from a girl that they can't corroborate later, so what, it's all good, so long as we can sanctimoniously claim that we were looking out for the welfare of children.
Who needs all those stuffy laws about probable cause and legal warrants? Checks and balances are for child haters and baby rape sympathizers right?
Where can I get my pitchfork?
Posted by: Lance | April 12, 2008 8:49 PM
Lance, please get specific with what you are suggesting occurred. I have suggested that the phone call might not have come from a girl in the compound. But it sounds like you are suggesting there wasn't a phone call at ALL!
If there was a phone call, saying what the police claim it said, then it certainly provided probable cause for the first warrant. The evidence found in plain view while serving the first warrant certainly justified the second warrant. Now, if you can show that the phone call never occurred, I might agree you have a point. But in this day of easily-accessed phone records, automatically recorded emergency lines, and so forth, I suspect the phone call itself is amply and fully documented. Even if the caller was a liar, that won't invalidate the original warrant - on such a tip, the police HAD to move with maximum urgency.
Posted by: BobApril | April 12, 2008 10:04 PM
Lance -
Let me simply ask you again. If your child was being held by a man who was brutally raping your child, would you really care if the police followed procedure, or would you prefer that they save your child?
I am not saying that there shouldn't be consequences. There is no question that if they raided the house your child was being held in without a warrant or probable cause, the rapist is going free. Or in any other hypothetical you can come up with. This does not give them a free hand to go about busting down doors and searching with impunity. Anything found under those circumstances would be thrown out of court.
But in situations where there are people being harmed right now, it is not unreasonable for them to do what they have to to save that person. Honestly, it doesn't even matter that it's children involved. If I'm being held captive and tortured, I wouldn't give a rats ass if they followed procedure. They can come save my ass and sort it out later.
This is not to say that the cops cut corners in this. There is no reason to believe that they did. Indeed everything that seems to be rolling along, would imply that they did nothing wrong.
Posted by: DuWayne | April 12, 2008 10:18 PM
DuWayne is right on target here, and it appears Lance is grasping at straws, every more desperately as his arguement goes down in a blaze of ignominy.
First of all, it appears that the original warrant has enough substance to be able to stand up in court. Second, it is well established that when police are serving a valid warrant, any other evidence of other crimes found in plain view or in the course of the original search is legitimate and other charges may be brought accordingly.
Now Lance is trying to argue that the original warrant is questionable. That issue will no doubt be decided in court and any further speculation about it here is pointless.
However, even if the original warrant is fatally flawed, Lance loses his case and the defendants go to prison, as follows:
You have a bunch of 13- and 14-year-old girls who are pregnant: that's prima-facie evidence that someone has been having sex with minors in violation of the law. Those girls are not just objects picked up in the search, they are individuals who can make statements and answer questions freely of their own volition.
The moment any one of those girls says to a police officer that they were impregnated by an adult, the issue of the original warrant is IRRELEVANT: you now have an independent accusation of the same crime, and a viable basis to DNA test all of those girls' fetuses (or babies once they're born) to determine who the fathers are, and thus you have a viable basis to charge those men with raping children.
Even if you throw out all of the evidence gathered in conjunction with the original search of the compound, you now have independent statements that are corroborated by DNA evidence. You can prosecute the pedophiles purely on the basis of that evidence alone, and you can get solid convictions purely on the basis of that evidence alone: Jane is 14, she just gave birth, the baby's DNA matches with the DNA of Bob who is 40: that's enough to send Bob up the river for a good long time. And if, along with Jane, we also have a number of other girls whose factual circumstances are the same, then we have enough to send the perps away for the rest of their lives.
All that the police ever needed to send these creeps away, was ONE girl with ONE baby who would make ONE statement about being impregnated by a grownup. They could have found any such girl by serving a search warrant or even by pulling over enough FLDS cars with multiple occupants, on minor traffic violations, until they saw a girl in the back seat who was obviously pregnant. Even if they had gone into that compound full-force without any warrant whatsoever, the moment they have ANY pregnant girl below the age of consent, who makes a statement, then the chase is on, and the rest of it follows from there.
So, Lance, sorry but your arguement is now officially dead.
---
About the mothers and the "double standard":
As a legal matter it will be necessary to charge both the fathers and the mothers with e.g. child endangerment. However, the mothers will most likely be acquitted and the fathers will most likely be convicted, as follows:
Both the mothers and the fathers are adult citizens of the USA, and no citizen is above the law (unitary executive theories notwithstanding). If their actions rose to the level that meets the legal test for charging with the offense (child endangerment or whatever) then it will be necessary to bring charges.
The women were raised from birth or from an early age in a totalitarian environment roughly comparable to North Korea: with little to no information about the outside world, with pervasive indoctrination, without the ability to leave of their own free will, with their children used as pawns to prevent them leaving, and being subjected to threats of violence and actual violence in retaliation for even the slightest act of dissent or disobedience.
Theirs is a classic case of hostage syndrome, magnified by the fact that they never knew anything except their hostage situation. Clearly there is sufficient evidence here for any jury to acquit the women on the basis of diminished capacity.
The adult men did have knowledge of the outside world, and did have the ability to come and go freely. They held absolute power over the women and children, and with that power also goes legal responsibility (e.g. a hostage taker can be charged with murder if the hostage dies while being held, even if the hostage-taker did not directly kill the hostage). The men, unlike the women, were not held against their will: even if they were subject to control by the leadership, the fact that they could leave the compound on their own gave them the means to report the abuses.
Further, the fact that the men denied the women the ability to leave the compound freely, can be seen as evidence of a conspiracy to conceal the existence of a pedophilia ring. All the religious stuff washes out of the equation: the men created a complex system that gave them the means to molest little girls freely and conceal their actions from the authorities.
Seen in that light, the men are all the more culpable.
So for the men, we have: child molestation (raping little girls), child endangerment (failure to protect their own children from being raped by other child molesting men in the compound), child abuse (active participation in the arrangements that led to their kids being raped by other grownups), false imprisonment (holding the mothers hostage in the compound), and criminal conspiracy to commit and conceal all of the above.
There's no double standard about it: these men were running a pedophile playground for themselves and doing everything that would be expected to conceal the arrangement from the authorities.
There should be no problem convicting these men on enough charges to put every single one of them away for the rest of their lives.
May they all die of Alzheimer's in their cells.
Posted by: g347 | April 12, 2008 10:23 PM
doctorgoo -
How in the world do you come to that conclusion? And since then is this defense as effective as you claim?
Reading Escape by Carolyn Jessop and Laura Palmer, who was once in an FLDS cult. Go up and read my rather exhaustive response to Leni, to see why I consider this a valid defense. These women are told from birth that this is what life is supposed to be like. They are told that things are extremely dangerous on the outside and are allowed very little experience outside, because of the danger they supposedly face. They are kept in ignorance that is far more extreme than I can even imagine. They honestly don'tknow that they don't have to accept the life they have.
Posted by: DuWayne | April 12, 2008 10:28 PM
DuWayne wrote:
That doesn't mean that they aren't groomed to be abusers the same way women are. Anyway, do you really think those women would be in there teaching anything like equality to their own children, even when their husbands aren't looking?
No DuWayne, they're telling them about perfect obedience. Grooming them to be the next generation of abusers and handing them over to child molesters because they think that treating girls like chattel is an acceptable trade off for eternal salvation. They more or less served their children up on platters for salvation. Victim or not, that is beyond incompetent, it's dangerous and abusive and every good reason to revoke parental privilege.
Posted by: Leni | April 12, 2008 10:35 PM
"every good reason to revoke parental privilege"
Now that I can agree with. Because these women have been so damaged by their own abusive upbringing, they may never be able to parent competently.
The trick here will be to decide what is best for the children. Children in foster care, without their siblings, without either parent, often don't do very well either. Taking them away from their mothers is a last resort in CPS cases, and for good reason. We always hope that with a few years of education and ongoing counseling, the mothers can be rehabilitated into competent parents.
What I don't agree with is the idea that these women should be punished as felons like the men should be. I don't think that's a double standard. The women are victims, the older, powerful men are exploiters.
Posted by: Elizabeth | April 12, 2008 11:17 PM
Leni -
There capacity to parent is a different matter entirely. I wouldn't argue that the children shouldn't be kept safe, even if that means taking them away. I would be surprised if they do get custody of the kids. Hell, many of the mothers are children themselves (physically I mean).
Anyway, do you really think those women would be in there teaching anything like equality to their own children, even when their husbands aren't looking?
Absolutely not. You seem to be missing the part where these women have spent their entire lives as prisoners of the men. They know absolutely nothing that the men don't teach them. They have never had the opportunity to get more than very short, very restricted glimpses of life outside the cult. They literally do not know any better. Indeed, they are convinced that people outside commit all sorts of atrocities.
Again, what do you expect these women to do? Try to look at it from the perspective that they do. When they are convinced that the outside world is really horrible, where are they supposed to go? When they are also convinced that they have no recourse, what are they to do? As far as they know, if the authorities didn't bring them back to the compound, it would be to do horrible things to them and their children.
Posted by: DuWayne | April 12, 2008 11:48 PM
Let me ask it this way; When this same sort of thing happens in Muslim countries that pretty much allow it, what do you expect the mothers of those abused children to do about it? Because what these women live, is very much the same.
Posted by: DuWayne | April 12, 2008 11:50 PM
This is a bad comparison for several reasons... 1) the law is on the side of the abusers... 2) they would have to escape to a different country (often times more than just a neighboring country) to find a less abusive situation... and 3) there isn't anyone for them to call to get help.
This differs significantly from the FLDS wives in every one of these respects... if they were willing to prevent the young girls from experiencing the pain and humiliation that they went through themselves, there is plenty of ways they could find to protect them.
The fact that they don't try to protect the kids speaks volumes about their character. And no, drinking the kool-aid of their religion is NOT a valid excuse. They know what it feels like to be abused, and they continue to enable this abuse to happen to others. That, DuWayne, is criminal.
Posted by: doctorgoo | April 13, 2008 9:18 AM
doctorgoo -
I would highly recommend reading the book I mentioned or Krakauer's book on FLDS cults. It is very much the same, as far as the women are concerned. They are kept ignorant and unaware that they don't actually have to live the way that they do.
Again, it's not just that they've drunk the koolaid of their religion, it's that they no nothing but their religion. They are kept completely ignorant of the laws of the land. As far as they are taught, from birth, life outside is far worse.
When they are taught that people outside are evil and dangerous, when they are taught that the safest life is life with their people, what exactly do you expect them to do? Please, explain what even one of these ways of protecting them might be. Where are they supposed to go, when they have been taught that if they were not returned home, it's because the people they run into are doing horrible things to them.
Look, I am not trying to convince anyone they should get their kids back. I am trying to explain the absolute horror that their lives are. They never stop being the victim of the abuse that started when they themselves were little girls. Especially when you figure the first time one of their children is started down the same path, they are in their early to mid twenties. That's becoming a grandparent in their mid twenties.
So you have an emotionally stunted, abysmally ignorant young women, who has spent her entire life being abused. She was emotionally and physically abused virtually since birth and was not only sexually abused at the point she has her first period, but was also forced to birth more children. Is she responsible yet? Or does she get a few years in which she is miraculously supposed to figure out that there are other options besides living this way.
Hell, let's even decide she's going to try to escape, assuming that somehow she has learned that it might not be like she was taught. She's going to rescue her kids on the way. How many should she take? Should she just take the one's she actually birthed, assuming that she even know which ones? Should she just take her favorites? How many do you figure she can get away with, without slowing her down too much? Keeping in mind that if she's caught it's quite likely she will be killed. Short of that, it's a certainty she will be severely beaten. And because that's what these people are like, the children are also likely to be beaten if they get caught. Especially the older ones, who are ready for breeding.
Ok, now let's assume she has escaped the compound with whatever kids. Where is she to go? The local town (as it were) is at least partly under control of the cult. In some situations, the local cop is a member - no safety there. These compounds are all way off the beaten path, figure at best, she's got a twenty mile hike with children in tow.
So please, explain what exactly they're to do.
Posted by: DuWayne | April 13, 2008 12:05 PM
Exactly what the 16 year old rape victim did... call for help.
And unless you agree with Lance that the phone call was faked, then you must admit that calling in help to prevent yourself and others from being raped is possible.
Posted by: doctorgoo | April 13, 2008 12:34 PM
I must say I'm on DuWayne's side of the argument here. As someone has previously stated (possibly DuWayne himself), these women are not your standard sexual abuse victims. They have been absolutely brainwashed since birth in the confines of a mini-theocracy. If they dissent in any way, virtually no one in their community is on their side. This situation is highly comparable to those in theocratic Muslim countries.
I would heartily recommend to anyone who's interested "Under the Banner of Heaven" by Jon Krakaeur. It's a fascinating expose of this lunatic cult.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | April 13, 2008 12:36 PM
Elizabeth wrote
I didn't really say that. I said they were both culpable, but I don't necessarily think the punishment should be the same, and I definitely don't think anyone should be treated like criminals for leaving and seeking help. I guess it would depend on the individual's circumstances. Some people join these cults willingly as adults because they agree with the philosophies and want the fringe benefits. Some are born and raised there. There's no reason to disregard circumstances.
I do, however, think that at the very least they ought to be considered unfit parents until they've demonstrated otherwise.
Posted by: Leni | April 13, 2008 1:08 PM
doctorgoo -
I would suspect that one of two things happened to make that phone call. Either someone not in the cult made the call, or the informant inside the compound encouraged and probably helped facilitate it. When women do manage to get out of FLDS or similar cults, it's almost always with the help of one of the men. Without the help and encouragement of a man in the cult, they are highly unlikely to try to get away. First, because they have no reason to believe that there is anywhere to go without a man telling them. Second, they are unlikely to have a chance of getting out without the help of a man.
Seriously, read one of the recommended books, or even some articles about this cult. You'll notice that no one who is disagreeing with me on this is mentioning having read about FLDS cults. You'll also notice that people who do agree, have read about these folks. There is a reason for that.
Posted by: DuWayne | April 13, 2008 1:14 PM
BobApril,
"Lance, please get specific with what you are suggesting occurred."
Bob, I am not suggesting anything "occurred" just that I would like to see corroborating evidence that demonstrates that the original warrant was justified. You suggest with credulity (complete with exclamation point) that it is inconceivable that the authorities may have lied to obtain the warrant. It certainly wouldn't be the first time a warrant was obtained on fraudulent grounds.
I simply want to see evidence that corroborates the statements made by Lynn McFadden in the original affidavit to obtain the first warrant.
You say, "If there was a phone call, saying what the police claim it said, then it certainly provided probable cause for the first warrant. The evidence found in plain view while serving the first warrant certainly justified the second warrant. Now, if you can show that the phone call never occurred, I might agree you have a point. But in this day of easily-accessed phone records, automatically recorded emergency lines, and so forth, I suspect the phone call itself is amply and fully documented"
Then we are in agreement. If there was a call that was believed to be real by the authorities they had every right to obtain a warrant and if evidence obtained with that first warrant indicated criminal behavior they had the right to seek a second warrant. I just want to see the evidence that you seem to believe could be easily presented.
The key phrase is "If there was a phone call, saying what the police claim it said..." I really don't see why people have attacked my pointing out this obvious point other than an emotionally motivated rush to lambaste anyone that is perceived to be defending the FLDS community. A defense I have never made. I am only interested in defending the rights afforded to everyone by the constitution.
g347,
Your argument, once sifted from its colorful bombast, is a straw man. You seem to be saying that I somehow believe that the adult males involved cannot be prosecuted based on the testimony of the young women involved. Please show where I have said anything like that.
Your only point addressing my actual argument is, "First of all, it appears that the original warrant has enough substance to be able to stand up in court."
Appears to whom, you? My only concern is that the circumstances surrounding the original warrant are in compliance with the law. As I said above to Bob April, if the facts stated in the original affidavit can be corroborated then I have no problem with the actions of the Texas authorities. At this point no such corroboration has been made.
Posted by: Lance | April 13, 2008 1:21 PM
The first possibility you give is nothing more than a conspiracy theory. And the second isn't supported by the facts (if an informant helped a girl make the call, then why isn't she easily identifiable?).
The FLDS has been in the news for years now. I've read articles. I've seen documentaries. So let me be the first to disagree with you (lol) even though I've read about these FLDS cults.
This is a pointless comment. So why is it that I've read up on these folks and don't agree with you?
IANAL, but I would think that in the very least, these women are guilty of child endangerment. Do they deserve as much punishment as the rapists themselves? Of course not. But I would say that they deserve some punishment, even if it's just losing their parental rights, receiving probation and a suspended sentence, coupled with mandatory psychiatric treatment.
I just don't like the idea of people thinking they can get away with endangering the health and welfare of a child just because they were abused too. They need to take responsibility for their actions. They know it is wrong because it happened to them too. And yet it took a child to find a way to get help, but none of the adult women did it for her.
Such a defense of these women's negligence would never work for anyone else, so why should it work for them?
Posted by: doctorgoo | April 13, 2008 1:46 PM
doctorgoo -
And the second isn't supported by the facts (if an informant helped a girl make the call, then why isn't she easily identifiable?).
THe second is supported by the history of these sorts of cults, especially FLDS cults. It is extremely rare that women come out of these cults, or that the cults get busted, without the help of a man. She probably isn't easily identified because either she's afraid of retaliation or the police have identified her and decided to keep quiet about it for her safety. We are also talking about hundreds of girls and women here, all of whom need to be interviewed. It's quite likely that because she isn't just jumping out and saying; "it was me who called" they just haven't gotten to her yet.
But I would say that they deserve some punishment, even if it's just losing their parental rights, receiving probation and a suspended sentence, coupled with mandatory psychiatric treatment.
Then we pretty much agree, excepting that I don't call this punishment. Considering that many women in their position are prone to committing suicide, trying to harm the children to "save" them and all sorts of other serious issues, they certainly should not have custody of their children and should be held for psychiatric care and counseling. For the older of them, it is highly unlikely they will ever build anything like a functional life. For the younger, they have a herculean task ahead of them, trying to rebuild.
I'm not sure exactly why you would see what your suggesting as a punishment. Though I have my doubts about them actually being charged with a crime, they are most certainly going to be committed. Or more accurately, they are likely to be found incompetent to stand trial for any crimes they might be charged with. Getting them help from an institution just isn't a punishment, it's doing them the best service we can as a society.
Such a defense of these women's negligence would never work for anyone else, so why should it work for them?
Not only has it worked for women not in cults, but similar situations, it has worked for women coming out of cults like this one.
Posted by: DuWayne | April 13, 2008 2:03 PM
Lance,
We are indeed in agreement here. I think the reason you're getting so much argument is that since such evidence is so elementary, it never occurred to anyone BUT you that the prosecution would have the slightest difficulty in producing it. I'm perfectly willing to wait for the court case on that - even a first-year attorney would be able to defend the cult leaders if the prosecution can't produce evidence of the phone call. If that happens, your argument will make sense. Until then, it seems sort of premature - you seem to be assuming not merely a conspiracy, but a totally INCOMPETENT one.Posted by: BobApril | April 13, 2008 4:23 PM
BobApril,
The statements I have seen in the press indicate that they still have not talked to the girl whose call was used to generate the first warrant. This remains the reason for my concern.
It requires no conspiracy for Lynn McFadden to lie in the original affidavit. One need look no further than Mike Nifong and the Duke Lacrosse players to find a prosecutor that abused his authority and brought criminal prosecution on innocent young men to further his own career.
The early rush to judgment in the press and popular opinion was against the "rich privileged white brats" not unlike the Nancy Grace-like mob mentality expressed by many of the posters in this thread.
Had those young men not had access to competent legal council it is quite likely that they would be in prison and the case would be a feather in Nifong's political cap.
To insinuate that my concerns are ridiculous is not born out by historical experience. No one is harmed or put in danger by holding the authorities accountable for their actions.
Posted by: Lance | April 13, 2008 7:32 PM
Lance -
Early rush to judgment? Seriously? What exactly are we supposed to think when you have large numbers of pregnant little girls living with a bunch of adult men who subscribe to the rape and incest of little girls?
The statements I have seen in the press indicate that they still have not talked to the girl whose call was used to generate the first warrant.
Jesus man, they have over four hundred women and children to interview. It may take some time to get to her, especially as she's probably not keen on jumping out and saying; "me, me, it was me." And even if they have, they may have decided not to mention it to the press. Contrary to what you might believe, victims have rights to, rights that may preclude us learning much about her.
To insinuate that my concerns are ridiculous is not born out by historical experience.
At best, they're premature. You seem bent on the notion that the cops acted dirty. I am not trying to say that this doesn't happen, it does. But to assume right off the bat that this sounds suspicious is whats ridiculous.
No one is harmed or put in danger by holding the authorities accountable for their actions.
Who's saying that authorities shouldn't be held accountable for their actions? There are a great many consequences that cops and prosecutors who step outside bounds may have. Not the least of which being the loss of the case they may be pursuing. There can also be a host of other consequences as well, including civil or possible criminal charges, removal from the state bar for prosecutors and or loss of their job.
The problem that I have had with you from the getgo on this, is that you want to start with the presumption that the cops were handling this in an illicit fashion. From day one, you have been far more concerned with them, than you have with a passel of fucking child rapists. It almost seems that you would prefer to have them ably raping little girls right now, than having a concern that they might have "cut corners" as it were.
Apparently, of far more concern than the welfare of these abused women and children (not to mention the boys who routinely get dumped off at a very early age), is making sure that the cops didn't do anything wrong or act on a bogus tip. This, in spite of no evidence that either of those things occurred.
Posted by: DuWayne | April 13, 2008 9:38 PM
DuWayne, in response to me:
While I haven't read this book specifically, I have heard plenty of these stories (hers included) before on 20/20 and similar. When Big Love started on HBO a few years ago, polygamy, Jeffs and the FLDS all became popular subjects on all the news magazines and TV shows. But I admit that it has been several months that I've followed these stories... so I tried to brush up on what reading I could easily find online to see if my memory is incorrect, and if their stories match your version more closely than they do mine.
And while I didn't find Escaped online, I did find these excerpts and condensed passages, among several others (I won't list them all because of the spam filters, but here are a couple):
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=559132&in_page_id=1879
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/you/article.html?in_article_id=503936&in_page_id=1908
The thing is that the reality of their lifestyles isn't as you put forth.
But it isn't as cut and dry as you put it. In the case of Jessop (as described in example references I listed above), instead of calling the police or FBI for help, she chose to leave on her own with her children. Since this was the solution she thought of, then yes, she did need help from her brother who had previously left the compound. But it wasn't like she was never able to meet outsiders or talk to authorities. She even attended college classes for awhile. At any time, she could have (and SHOULD have) called the police or the FBI for help. It isn't like it was completely impossible for her to find a cell phone to do this, she just chose not to.
She knew that the outside world considered it wrong... She knew from firsthand knowledge how shitty and abusive a life it was. And yet she allowed the abuse to continue on all the other children around her.
Eventually she came to her senses and did the right thing... but why would she allow this to happen for so long? She didn't blame it on never being allowed to leave the house long enough to get help... or being so beaten down that she couldn't get her head on straight long enough to think rationally at all... No, she blamed it on her religious beliefs. She used it as an excuse to allow very obvious examples of abuse to happen all around her to people who were (comparatively) naive and defenseless.
Sorry, but saying "my religion says it's okay" does NOT excuse allowing abuse to occur.
No, it wasn't until she got fed up with it herself that she decided to escape. Up until then, she chose to look the other way when young wives would walk by with sunglasses on, hiding their black eyes.
Certainly she is a victim. But so is a murderer who blames her rage on the abuse she had from her father or husband. Does this excuse her behavior in the eyes of the law? Of course not. ...BTW... it was examples like this that I was thinking of when I wrote "Such a defense of these women's negligence would never work for anyone else, so why should it work for them?"
Well, unfortunately you are correct on this one... people are sometimes successful in using the "But I was abused as a child too" defense to away with criminal behavior. What I should have said is that it is a terrible injustice when something like this happens.
Even if the punishment is just a suspended criminal sentence, it sends a message to others that such an excuse isn't to be tolerated... and while there may be some special circumstances that dictate that pity (and lesser punishments) should be given to some of them, it would be completely wrong just to write all these situations off as the women being "mentally incompetent" due to their own abused childhoods. There are somethings that are plainly morally and legally unacceptable, and therefore are deserving of punishment when adults don't find the courage to take a stand against it.
The bottom line is that most of the older women (meaning in their 20s-30s) were fully aware of these activities, and also knew that it really was abusive. But they chose to look the other way instead of protecting the children in their little society. This is child endangerment, in the very least, and there should be consequences for such negligent behavior.
Posted by: doctorgoo | April 13, 2008 10:22 PM
DuWayne,
I have repeatedly said that the FLDS adults should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. My concern that the police follow the law does not somehow imply that I do not have sympathy for the young women (and young men) that were victims of this cult.
My family became Mormons when I was six years old and remained part of that cult for nearly twenty years. I suffered mental and physical abuse at the hands of these cultists. While the main Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints no longer practices polygamy it shares many of the destructive practices and customs of the FLDS.
My parents eventually realized that the Mormons were a cult and spent the next twenty years of their lives trying to help people get out. They are still affiliated with the Mount Carmel Outreach ministry that specializes in getting people away from cults.
Just because I didn't rail against the abuses committed by the FLDS doesn't somehow mean that I condone them. The ACLU often defends the constitutional rights of unpopular groups such as the American Nazi Party. Would you accuse them of tacitly approving of this organization?
The ACLU realizes, as I do, that if the government is allowed to violate the rights of unpopular groups and individuals it is a threat to all of our constitutional protections.
Posted by: Lance | April 14, 2008 11:12 AM
Lance -
The ACLU realizes, as I do, that if the government is allowed to violate the rights of unpopular groups and individuals it is a threat to all of our constitutional protections.
And quite honestly, as vile and repugnant as these men are, if it turns out the police did violate their rights, I will be right there supporting their right to go free for it. Do I want these men to go to prison for their crimes? Absolutely. But if they do not, it will not change the fact that the children they were raping or were going to rape will be safe from them. It will also not change the fact that they will be hard pressed ever to do this again.
You seem to be assuming that because I really am more concerned about the safety of the victims of ongoing crimes, than the procedure used to bring them to safety, that I support police abuse of power. I do not. I just am willing to accept that there are occasionally trade offs to be made to protect victims. The fact that some criminals are smart enough to ensure that the police cannot get the goods on them legitimately does not mean that they should be able to continue abusing their victims. If in the end it means they go free, it is worth it to save the victims of their crimes.
doctorgoo -
Between Escape and a whole lot of reading I did on them, I learned how many FLDS cults operate. And many of them hold these women as virtual prisoners their whole lives. Many fo them keep the women very ignorant of life on the outside. All of them start the girls breeding at first period and continue this abuse for much fo their lives.
When I referred to similar situations, I meant abusers that imprison their victims, most often wife and children. Apparently, I have a little more sympathy than you, for adult women in such situations. That such women seek out those situations is often no real fault of their own, quite often they're simply seeking someone like their own father. When they end up being held hostage, all sorts of things happen that are not of their creation, including being their husband's tool for abusing the children.
As far as sending a message, the message gets to people who aren't in those kind of situations. Do you really think that the cultists are going to tell the women about it, when cults like this one get busted? And if they do, do you believe that the men won't use it as a propaganda tool to show them how evil the outside is? These women do not get an unfettered view of the world, even if some of them know more about their rights than others. Everything is filtered through the men who hold the power.
You seem to act as though these women can just turn on a tee vee and figure out whats going on around them. It's just not that simple.
it would be completely wrong just to write all these situations off as the women being "mentally incompetent" due to their own abused childhoods.
It's not just an abused childhood. It's about a lifetime of abuse, starting shortly after they are born. It's about being a virtual prisoner for their entire lives. It's not even like they go from one abusive situation to another, it starts from the beginning of their life and ends only when they die, unless they are lucky enough to escape or be rescued.
Please explain how anyone could live that and not be mentally incompetent.
Posted by: DuWayne | April 14, 2008 4:34 PM
DuWayne,
I agree 100% with you about protecting the children. But, I also see parental rights diminishing more and more all the time. My issue with some of what you said here it that these cases are the exception not the rule. Any procedures used against them can be used against anyone else. I stated earlier on this thread that no right is an absolute right. There are limits. But I think we need to error on the side of making sure that rights are not violated to ensure the rights of others. This is a very general statement and I can elaborate more if you would like.
I just see Bush using "emergency situations" all the time as reasons to take our rights away. I am with Jessie Ventura when he said on Hannity and Colmes the other night that he wants to keep his rights and take his chances with the terrorists. This is a tough issue.
It is somewhat like the whole abortion issue to me. I think it is wrong but can why people would say it is a privacy issue. But I also look at the rights of the unborn child. I know this gets into what is "life" conversations but is somewhat the same theme. I just know I have seen a lot of crazy stuff done "to protect the children". I have also seen many things not done and children were hurt. Tough issue. Real tough. These cults are wacked.
Posted by: King of Ireland | April 14, 2008 5:55 PM
You keep bringing up Carolyn Jessop and her book Escape as a typical example of life in the FLDS cults. And yet her own story disputes your version of what her life must have been like. From the two links I provided above:
Jessop wasn't the "virtual prisoner" as you claim she was. Yes, life was very tough on her given her childhood... growing up thinking that f'ed up shit all around her was normal.
But she had a decent head on her shoulders, and eventually she did manage to take the correct, moral action of trying to save her children. And while it took her a long time to finally come to that conclusion, she is still an example of what EVERY mother in these cults should be doing. And she certainly isn't the example you should be using to demonstrate how impossible it is for the adult women to be get the courage to stand up for themselves and the defenseless girls around them.
No, my sympathies lie squarely with the innocent, naive children who don't know any better than to think that what's going on around them is normal. The adults who are in a position to know better, and yet allow this to happen (merely for the absurd reason that they believe that allowing such abuse will lead them to Heaven and Salvation) get much less sympathy from me.
Many of them most assuredly can figure out that what's going on around them is wrong... with or without a tv.
Look, when an adult is incapable of thinking like an adult, then this is a legitimate excuse not doing the right thing. But from Escaped, you see examples of these adults being able to rationalize their behavior without having to think in naive, childish ways. Again from the two book excerpts:
And while you can see how the favored wife would be very unlikely to rat out her husband and their lifestyle, it seems to me that some of the less-favored wives, like Jessop, would be more willing and able to come to the conclusion that justice is required to make the lives of everybody around them better.
For those women who considered themselves in power, in spite of how shitty their lives actually were... for them to allow such abuse of children to go on around them is unconscionable.
Yes, most certainly those women who felt like they gained from the abuse of their younger sister-wives should be punished.
If your premise as stated in the first paragraph were entirely accurate, then your conclusion that they'd be mentally incompetent is indeed a reasonable one. However, my readings on this issue, including the book that you just recommended, don't support this premise at all.
For the most part, these are women who know that the abuse that occurs around them is wrong... because they didn't like it when it happened to them, too. But they choose to just 'go with the flow', instead of being courageous and doing what's right, even when it among the least easiest paths for them to follow.
I'm sorry DuWayne, but in an adult world... if a person is capable of taking responsibility for their actions, but chooses the easy way out instead of doing what's good and moral... then there should be consequences for when such abhorrent abuse is the result.
Posted by: doctorgoo | April 14, 2008 8:40 PM
Just to reiterate these guys aren't Mormon. They have as much to do with Mormons as David Koresh had to do with Baptists.
Likewise Mormons aren't a cult. The people who go around saying we are and spreading falsehoods. Well them (typically fundamentalist Evangelicals who think the world came into being 7000 years ago) I'd feel more comfortable calling a cult.
Posted by: Clark | April 15, 2008 9:26 PM
Sorry, got really busy, hope you guys see this.
KoI -
I want to be clear, I have very serious issued with how easy it is for many states to remove kids from their families. I have a dear friend who actually had her son taken for ten weeks, because he was lied to by DARE officers and admitted that he had seen some paraphernalia, when he had barged into his mom's room one night. This lead to a investigation that put mom in jail and her parental rights in jeopardy. Mind you, she was a very occasional pot smoker (no drinking or other intoxicants) and a first class mom.
Another friend lost visitation rights, after grounding his teen daughter. She decided to call the police and accuse him of beating her, in retaliation. She tried to make it all right after she found out she wasn't going to be allowed to see him anymore, but it was too late. Even with her mother trying to explain to the court that her daughter had lied, her father was left with a restraining order to stay away from his own daughter, whom he had never even spanked, much less beaten.
So please, don't presume that I am a advocate of the state taking kids away from their parents.
The thing about dealing with an immediate, ongoing criminal victimization, is that there still have to be trade-offs if the authorities cut corners to stop it. From basically conceding the case against the criminals involved, to potential legal and civil sanctions. This is ultimately what keeps them honest. I am arguing only for a very narrow exception for a specific sort of criminal action and at that, still accepting that it will have consequences, such as the perpetrators going free.
doctorgoo -
I emailed you.
Clark -
Likewise Mormons aren't a cult. The people who go around saying we are and spreading falsehoods. Well them (typically fundamentalist Evangelicals who think the world came into being 7000 years ago) I'd feel more comfortable calling a cult.
Like many "mainstream" Christian sects, I consider the LDS church to be a cult. Sorry, but the shoe fits. While I would be the first to admit that the difference between the LDS and the FLDS is significant, the LDS church engages in, as a matter of dogma, cult like behaviors. But then, so do a lot of your typical fundamentalist evangelicals, so you're in "good" company.
Posted by: DuWayne | April 16, 2008 7:42 PM