Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 455 posts

Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

#121

Post by MisterWalter »

api wrote: post #57
dankohn1 wrote: post #31

For all the Americans on HN, just be clear that the DEA is acting in our name. They represent us, and we are responsible for their actions. This and worse occurs every day, and will continue to until we get our elected representatives to stop it.

So do I vote for s Republicrat or a Republicrat? Or maybe s third party with no chance?

You help built momentum for a proper electoral system instead of the garbage we have now. I blows my mind that after centuries we still have something as idiotic as the electoral college, and all the imbalance it brings, in our nation.

Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

#122

Post by sdoering »

itistoday2 wrote: post #15
imroot wrote: post #10

While civil forfeiture is scary, my (very very brief) stint doing criminal law as a public defender showed me that there's also a bigger side of this -- seizing the assets of individuals who are charged with a crime so that they cannot attain private counsel, make bail, or receive any creature comforts while incarcerated. What will generally happen is that after sitting in jail for 120+ days, they'll jump at any oppo…

I am concerned that by calling it "civil forfeiture" this article is using language to mask a very basic crime. What was described in this article is called stealing or theft. To call it anything else is to mask and downplay what was done to this man. It is to enable the very act that was committed. George Carlin observed this as a dangerous trend in our language: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuEQixrBKCc Call it "…

Well in medieval times we called these people "robber knights" [1].

Good to see, that the US are capable of learning from history by importing great achievements and ideas of former times from the old world.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron

Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

#123

Post by task_queue »

cbsmith wrote: post #117

"Asset forfeiture is lucrative for the DEA. According to their latest notification of seized goods, updated Monday, agents have seized well over $38 million dollars' worth of cash and goods from people in the first few months of this year." Umm... $38 million in three months works out to about 5% of the DEA's operating budget. If your revenue is 5% of your burn rate, that's not exactly lucrative. This is money that,…

When is it ever not nice to have $38m kicking around that isn't pre-allocated and can be used for whatever?

Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

#124

Post by sdoering »

hinkley wrote: post #81
thedufer wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Civil forfeiture isn't "soft language", it's a precise legal term. You may not agree with the principle (I certainly don't), but calling it theft is no different from a libertarian doing the same with taxation.

Are you saying you haven't noticed the systemic pattern of baking soft language into laws? Have you not noticed the names they put on bills to get them through Congress (state or federal)? Right to Work? No Child Left Behind? DOMA, Internet Freedom Act. Hell, the Affordable Care Act (I SAID IT, sue me!) These guys have it figured out, and when we figure it out they just change tactics. If they're that brazenly Orwell…

In Germany we have a great blog dedicated to detecting these words and dismantling them. And showing what they really mean and what the cover.

It is called "Neusprech.org" (newspeak.org translated). Really a great resource.

Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

#125

Post by tsotha »

cbsmith wrote: post #117

"Asset forfeiture is lucrative for the DEA. According to their latest notification of seized goods, updated Monday, agents have seized well over $38 million dollars' worth of cash and goods from people in the first few months of this year." Umm... $38 million in three months works out to about 5% of the DEA's operating budget. If your revenue is 5% of your burn rate, that's not exactly lucrative. This is money that,…

The DEA isn't a company. They already get a budget from the treasury and shouldn't be behaving like a profit-making concern. "Lucrative" is the right word.

Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

#126

Post by xroche »

adventured wrote: post #79
AwesomeGriffin wrote: post #33

I've heard this sort of thing happening in Third World countries. Perhaps the US is - for all its advanced technology and creature comforts - essentially now a Third World kleptocracy. Silicon Valley and Manhattan are like Dubai - gaudy showcases that don't represent the true nature of the hinterland. I would be very wary about working in Dubai; I would be equally wary about working and living in the US for the same…

The US still ranks among the best nations on earth when it comes to low corruption in fact. The civil forfeitures problem is non-trivial, but you're drastically exaggerating. The whole of the US has a very highly functional, low-corruption judiciary system, and a mostly still intact and strong property rights system. Most of America is low crime, low corruption, the opposite of what you're implying. In fact it's beca…

> The US still ranks among the best nations on earth when it comes to low corruption in fact

Yes, because corruption has been legalized through corruption.

You can, as a rich person, or an enterprise, legally bride politicians so that they can pass laws for your own profit.

"low crime, low corruption".

Also remember that "no crime" has been committed in the 2008 financial crisis.

Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

#127

Post by sitkack »

itistoday2 wrote: post #89
patcon wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Taxation today is theft. You say "theft" like it's the typical "take" act that the word normally implies. It's more like someone stealing $200 and giving you a bicycle you didn't ask for, but you're likely still going to use it anyhow. ie. it's complicated, so it gets a new word :)

> It's more like someone stealing $200 Sounds like we're in agreement then. :) > and giving you a bicycle you didn't ask for s/bicycle/war. No worries, I make that typo all the time. ;)

I can't even imagine what 6 trillion dollars worth of bicycles looks like.

Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

#128

Post by boomlinde »

sukilot wrote: post #78
andrewchambers wrote: post #22

It is amazing that Americans allow this sort of thing then say they are a world leader in personal liberty.

It is almost like America is made up of people with different opinions and circumstances.

I believe that the comment was referring specifically to "Americans [that] allow this sort of thing then say they are a world leader in personal liberty", and I'm not sure how saying that there are other people in America is a relevant response.

The practice of civil forfeiture is being "allowed" by not doing anything about it or by giving it legitimacy by accepting it as something that should be reformed politically rather than treating it as a criminal violation of constitutional rights. Just because you get worked up about it for 15 minutes when reading an article about the injustice it causes doesn't mean that you aren't allowing it. Most people will unfortunately not even have a strong opinion about it until it happens to them or someone close to them.

Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

#129

Post by forrestthewoods »

imroot wrote: post #10

While civil forfeiture is scary, my (very very brief) stint doing criminal law as a public defender showed me that there's also a bigger side of this -- seizing the assets of individuals who are charged with a crime so that they cannot attain private counsel, make bail, or receive any creature comforts while incarcerated. What will generally happen is that after sitting in jail for 120+ days, they'll jump at any oppo…

Fuck that. Even criminals deserve fair legal council. And to not be treated like filthy animals.

Shame on you.

Edit: downvotes deserved. I read it several times and still interpreted the first paragraph to be in support of taking money because it denied full legal access. My brain flipped a word into "good". Despite being a public defender no less! Leaving comment anyways because that seems like the honest thing to do. Sorry.

Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

#130

Post by task_queue »

greendata wrote: post #35

If the police continue to allow asset seizure eventually an enterprising politician and banker will find a way to seize police pensions. There will be no public outcry. Once you institutionalize theft at this level it doesn't stay put--it grows.

The banker or politician will never be affected by this, why would they try to upset the police unions?
Post reply on HN