The Glade 4.0

The only thing reprehensible here is allowing a child to die because an i didn't get dotted. I don't give a rat's patootie how you try to defend that.

How do you know there are still enough children in urgent need of evacuation in Haiti to continue to require so many flights?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I'm amused at the irony of Bery basically flailing his arms in the air and screaming, "OMG think of the CHILDREN!!!!"

Well, a clue might be that pilot in the video who spoke of some deaths....

It's the legacy of people over-reacting to the Haitian officials detaining them, maybe. Whose fault is that other than the people doing the over-reacting?

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

So it's over-reacting to not want to go to jail for nothing more than trying to help?

The point is Beryllin, it IS more than trying to help.

A terrible hurricane comes into a US coastal city and lays waste to the city. Folks are going hungry and aid is amazingly slow in coming. An organization heads down there to help, and decides to help relocate a whole bunch of kids because they are in danger. They get stopped at a checkpoint coming out of the city and don't have any paperwork or anything that looks remotely offical that they have guardianship over these kids. On top of that, some of the kids are screaming for their parents (who are very obviously not these people). As a law enforcement officer, what would you do?

As I already pointed out, some deaths are simply part and parcel of major natural disasters, and in any case, "some children might die" is not any reason to remove safeguards against some being kidnapped - or encountering any of the problems Stathol mentioned.

Then, as I pointed out, that woman is a pilot. How many deaths is she talking about and how does she know they would have survived in any event?

Your position is absurd; that absolutely no requirement whatsoever can be allowed to stand in the way of getting children out of the country for any reason. The fact of the matter is that simply saving lives is not a justification to toss all other concerns by the wayside.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Funny you say that, I tried to in a round about way to use mens rea when I was charged with Dog-at-large because my neighbor shot my dog with a pellet gun that made it leave my property. I tried to argue that his unlawful action resulted in another and he should be charged with both crimes. Prosecutor got a bit ruffled at that idea and became visibly agitated when the judge was nodding his head at my argument . Still the end result was a guilty verdict on me

Still it seemed a perfectly logical argument to me. If someone breaks into my car and disables the parking brake and it rolls into traffic I should not be liable for any damages it causes.

_________________

Strawman much? I'm talking about medical flights out for injured children who need immediate help, and getting 33 children to a place with food, water, and shelter. That's hardly "for any reason", not to mention that it's been clear that the detained group did try to work with the authorities. Should the missionaries have just let them starve or die of thirst, since the authorities were more interested in the red tape than the survival of those children?

Yes. Because the missionaries were charged with "Trying to Help, in the 1st Degree". But when that wouldn't stick, they lowered the charges to "Criminally Negligent Helping".

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

No, I'm not strawmanning. You've claimed that making people have proper documentation is "red tape" and "no defense" for slowing the exit of children from the country for medical treatment.

However, since all children would need documentation to need the country, removing that requirement is saying exactly that: Regardless of the reason for the requirement, it cannot be allowed to stand int he way of getting children out of the country. You're just conveniently ignoring the fact that the law applies to all children leaving the country, and removing it means those not in need of medical attention could much more easily be kidnapped.

Furthermore, this is not "red tape" that's just predjudicial language for a perfectly sensible law. Not only that, but you're moving the goalposts; first it was urgent medical attention, now it's starvation and thirst - problems that can be dealt with much more easily than serious injuries without evacuating people. Why these particular 33 children were in need of evacuation because of hunger and thirst is beyond me.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

If that were what had happened, I'd agree with you, but it's not. I don't know how many times it's going to have to be pointed out that the group was trying to work with the authorities.

You are strawmanning because I never said "for any reason." The fact remains that the missionaries were trying to work with the authorities.

That has also been explained.

Where have you pointed that out? I haven't seen that stated here or on the news, except after they were detained.

Even in the earliest reports Haitian officials have said they were in contact with the group a minimum of four hours before they tried to cross the border.

Actually, DE, since you live in Ohio, maybe there is a more urgent need for child trafficking work than slamming on missionaries that are helping earthquake victims:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,585 ... latestnews

But it's easier to pick on innocent evangelicals, isn't it.

Damn, we've been found out. Yes, Beryllin, it's anti-Christian, anti-American, anti-child sentiment that drives opposing opinions on this. Curses! We would have gotten away with it, too...

Oh, and by the way, your link is a stronger argument for our point, that there need to be laws in place to prevent such, and that they need to be upheld. Case in point:

Hmm...weak laws on human trafficking...demand for cheap human capital...proximity to a foreign country's border...but it's ok to take children with no authorization or proof.

Link? I don't remember reading that in any of the articles I've reviewed.

Except I didn't say it was ok. If the missionaries had not been trying to work with the authorities I'd be on your side in this argument. But they did have paperwork (just not the paperwork the authorities wanted) and the authorities knew what they were trying to do.

Nice strawman, though. Learning from DE?

Yes, there is. In fact when I took my daughter to the DMV for her temp, there was a poster up about recognizing traffiking victims. If FOX thinks this is news they're way behind.




Yeah I'm picking on evangelicals by pointing out that a law against removing a child from their home country without authorization makes perfect sense, and that people who are in such a rush that they can't comply are idiots who can't plan right.

Did you pick up the victim card since it's not currently in use?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Links would be about two weeks old, but I'll try to find one.

Amazing how this little tidbit is just appearing now despite supposedly being in the "earliest reports". If they didn't have the right paperwork, they should have gone back and **** gotten the right ****, especially if the authorities had already told them that. You're just establishing their incompetance.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Strawman? You want to talk about strawmanning? How about your constant claims that these people were arresting for "trying to help?" Or how brooking any argument with you on the issue is "blame Americans first?" Or let's go with this ridiculous anti-Christian angle you've drummed up.

To add to the current turn of discussion, this is of note:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/02 ... ted=2&_r=1