print“Back in the day, the law was intended as a bulwark against government abuses. It has now become an implement of government, to be utilized by all-knowing rulers for the “greater good”—the founders’ Blackstonian view of the law has been supplanted by a Benthamism that encourages ambitious prosecutors to discard a defendant’s rights. Add the aggravating circumstances of a highly militarized federal law enforcement that shares the judiciary’s contempt for the Rights of Englishmen, and is abetted by a public dimmed by statist schools and media—and one has a recipe for disaster. A mouthful maybe, but something to ponder as another prosecutorial team gathers steam, this time in Utah, where the state, feds in tow, has been pursuing Warren Jeffs, leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints…”
The excerpt is from this week’s WND column, “Remember Reno!.” Comments are Welcome.
Update: Quite a few conservative, as opposed libertarian, readers wrote in to lambaste me for what they perceived as my taking up the cause of Warren Jeffs, the polygamist. Some embellished by asserting—no evidence was provided—that Jeffs, in addition to servicing all those wives of his, also sodomized many boys. But most egregious, as one reader contended, was Jeffs’ reputation for not liking blacks and their music. “This makes him extra evil,” my reader complained.
Let me be clear: I don’t take up causes; I try my best to work from principle and fact to arrive at the truth. I know; anathema in our partisan, fiction-based society.
None of the aforementioned accusations are in the indictment. Hating blacks or Jews is no crime, either—at least not in a free society, something conservatives are doing their utmost to sunder.
My points in the column, I believe, were exactly right in that they addressed evidence; not fiction or hearsay—the same stuff upon which the sexual abuse contagion was based in the 1980s (also elaborated on in “Remember Reno!”).
Since we have moved to being a fiction rather than a fact-based society, my readers’ positions don’t surprise.
Seems like whenever a guy’s take on religion includes multiple sexual relationships, or rumors thereof, our benevolent protectors have to protect us from such sinful lives.
Too bad they aren’t as interested in protecting citizens’ right to be left alone.
Cheers from the ozone layer
[Welcome back; I’ve missed you on BAB]
Reading about Janet Reno and Bill Clinton has ruined my morning coffee more than once over the years. This morning is no exception. I suppose it is well that we regurgitate the slime from the past on occaision lest we forget.
Out here in Kalifornia, we had the McMartin Preschool case, which was huge, took some years, and consumed much in the way of resources. It also ruined the lives of several people and probably traumatized the kids whose testimony was pretty iffy. I wonder if Reno had anything to do with that case.
I don’t particularly have anything against voluntary polygamy. I’ve heard some arguments for polygamy and/or polyamory that sound good theoretically, though I don’t know how well it would work for the bulk of the human race… one of them is that if a man is not restricted to one woman only, then he is less likely to insist that only gorgeous women are good enough. The couple of men I’ve known who were in that lifestyle *claimed* that because they didn’t have to limit themselves to just one woman, they were more likely to consider those of us who don’t look like movie stars.
I can kind of see that point, but I don’t think I personally would be happy being one of a man’s harem. OTOH, in my younger years maybe I could have gone for more than one boyfriend. 😉
I haven’t read the affidavit and I don’t have a copy of it. The law is clear: 1) an adult cannot marry a minor unless given parental consent and it is voluntary and 2) polygamy is banned and illegal. That it hasn’t been prosecuted in Utah before doesn’t mean it’s not illegal. It was being ignored.
Therefore there is a logical basis for the charges against Jeffs. For one, it is reasonable to assume that Jeffs knew that the underage children he was marrying off to adults would be pressured into sex. Secondly, the Government is pursuing Jeffs rather than the “parents” who would theoretically be indictable, because it is Jeffs who is the figurehead of the subversive illegal club and the easiest to target. By removing Mother Ant, you kill or cripple the colony. Not to mention the extraneous reasons for charging Jeffs which include his community’s lifelong abuse of the Welfare system (he’s wealthy but he doesn’t spend his own money on his families). While some of these things may not be “criminal” by law, it gives impetus for law officials to target Jeffs and his illegal conduct in order to help rectify all that is wrong with his illegitimate institution. I certainly hope evidence isn’t fabricated to see this thru, but if the allegations are true and the evidence is real, everything else should follow.
Urging a teenager under the threat of being an outcast and being condemned to Hell if the she does not capitulate is complicit to rape under these very specific circumstances. These teens are cut off from the outside world and are not exposed to alternative beliefs or options.
The claim that he was “dangerous” and putting him on the FBI’s most want list is indeed outlandish. I cannot justify all of these actions and you’re right that the law appears to be taking a backseat. But one must also ask why did Jeffs run and go into hiding if he was innocent? Perhaps if he had followed the legal route to begin with, not only would be appear less guilty, but the media frenzy and FBI wouldn’t be gunning for him in the same way.
[Oh yes, those who trust in the law are NEVER imprisoned unjustly. Doesn’t happen. Why don’t you do a Google search to find out how often people are imprisoned unjustly. The Duke rape case is a good recent example of why running is the most natural, intuitive response if one is, like Jeffs (and myself—and almost any other intelligent person I know), distrustful of the state. Read edifying books such as Constitutional Chaos or The Tyranny of Good Intentions: How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Trample the Constitution in the Name of Justice]
A conviction should be hard to come by if there is only a single allegation being made by one accuser with little evidence to support the claims. By the same token, it is this lack of transparency within polygamist communities that is one of its greatest problems. Reasonable people should and will question what goes on behind closed doors in Jeffs odd empire, because many of those who live in it may be too young and afraid to speak for themselves. Or even lack the awareness to do so. [They’d be far better off in the state’s foster-care system of institutionalized abuse, right?!]
I will never argue that the State is perfect or that it hasn’t abused its powers. I am not naive enough to trust the State at all, but I don’t agree that we are at a point where it would be “most natural” or “intuitive” to run from the law when called upon. In doing so you only lend credibility to the State’s case.
If Jeffs faced his charges and was found guilty with little or no corroborating evidence, we would slam the State just as we’ve done in the Ramse and Duke cases.
[You seem to think that “slamming” the powers that be will indeed bring about a fair dispensation. That’s right, girls, hit the Renos of the justice system with your powder puffs; you go girl! Here’s some more reading for those who shun facts and analysis for good faith: “‘Mad Dog’ Sneddon Vs. Michael Jackson“/”Convicted for Fearing Conviction“. If it happened to them, just imagine yourself in The Machine] I just don’t see how running helps anybody (unless he’s taking legal advice from O.J.)I just don’t see how running helps anybody (unless he’s taking legal advice from O.J.)If the ban against polygamy had been enforced all these years as it should have been, the question of what should happen to the children would not exist. Ironically this is another example of the stubborn and non-uniform application of law by the State.
I just don’t see how running helps anybody (unless he’s taking legal advice from O.J.)If the ban against polygamy had been enforced all these years as it should have been, the question of what should happen to the children would not exist. Ironically this is another example of the stubborn and non-uniform application of law by the State.
I just don’t see how running helps anybody (unless he’s taking legal advice from O.J.)If the ban against polygamy had been enforced all these years as it should have been, the question of what should happen to the children would not exist. Ironically this is another example of the stubborn and non-uniform application of law by the State.
I just don’t see how running helps anybody (unless he’s taking legal advice from O.J.)If the ban against polygamy had been enforced all these years as it should have been, the question of what should happen to the children would not exist. Ironically this is another example of the stubborn and non-uniform application of law by the State.
I just don’t see how running helps anybody (unless he’s taking legal advice from O.J.)If the ban against polygamy had been enforced all these years as it should have been, the question of what should happen to the children would not exist. Ironically this is another example of the stubborn and non-uniform application of law by the State.
Usually I save my dirision for defense lawyers; I wanted to be a prosecutor after law school until I remembered that what goes “up the river” comes back “down the river,” possibly looking for me.
The polygamists bother me because they
force marriage on 11 and 12-year- old girls. Women who have “escaped” have verified this fact. It would be great to catch that going on, otherwise live and let live.
As for Janet Reno, she handed out more “Get out of jail free” cards in Dade County–a record for Dade’s Prosecutorial history. She was the one for Clinton.
I remember her with hate when I remember the look of terror on that poor little boy’s face while in the closet while jackbooted men pointing AK47s 12 inches from him. No doubt Reno was sitting back, feet on her desk,smoking a Cuban cigar.
I will always remember Janet Reno best as Will Farrell on SNL in the blue dress doing “Janet Reno’s Dance Party.”
[I thought of calling the column, “It’s Reno Time”—also a line from that SNL segment]
Funny, isn’t it? A man can shack up with as many women as he wants and nothing happens to him. Some segments of society would even consider him a hero — consider Hugh Hefner. But let the man call these arrangements “marriage” & he is a criminal liable to be put on the FBI most wanted list and maybe even shot.
The acts are the same. Only the word is different. The word and the legal consequences.
Strange world we live in, isn’t it?