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

361–370 of 455 posts

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

#361

Post by gefh »

dba7dba wrote: post #347
Houshalter wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

George Orwell wrote a fantastic essay on this that is worth reading: >In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the profes…

dropping of the atom bombs on Japan I respectfully disagree that it's indefensible. It was either 100,000 Japanese civilians in those 2 cities OR million or more American casualties. AND if the invasion had taken place, millions and millions of Japanese civilians would've died also. I agree, with proper PR language, anything can be made look half decent and therefore tolerable.

Orwell's quote was: > ... can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face.

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

#362

Post by hinkley »

diyorgasms wrote: post #343
harryh wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bank robber should be able to use the money they steal to defend themselves?

Someone accused of robbing a bank should not be able to use their own money to defend themselves against such an accusation? You have a major problem with your presumption of guilt.

I suspect there's some sad commentary on the state of humanity that you have bother yourself to say something like this.

Whatever happened to "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"? I know that has origins in English Law but the Founding Fathers considered it to be so important it figures heavily in the Bill of Rights.

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

#363

Post by shit_parade2 »

ploxiln wrote: post #120
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…

I'm a US citizen who is very unhappy about "civil forfeiture", about mass surveillance, etc. But the reality is that most people in the US are not directly affected. I haven't really been affected, and I don't personally know anyone who has been. (yeah yeah it helps that I'm white.) Most US citizens who are aware of these things, like me, are very unhappy about them. But most people are not really aware, and one reas…

More people rot in American jails than any other country.

America admits to torture and does nothing.

America has a kill list that only the executive presides over and keeps secret.

We've killed hundreds of thousands of civilians over the last decade and displaced millions.

And yet here is a presumptuous America ready to claim moral superiority over Russians and Chinese. A horrific display of Orwellian doublethink.

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

#364

Post by Frondo »

dalke wrote: post #277
Frondo wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do give consent by continuing to live here past the age of maturity. When you're a child, and your parents have custody of you, they make that choice for you--you're a citizen here, here's where you'll live, be politically involved, and pay taxes. When you're old enough to make that choice for yourself, that's when you can stay--with all that entails--or go.

There are several reasons why this argument does not work. The most important is that US law says that US citizens must pay taxes, even those who live in other countries. The only way to avoid it is to give up US citizenship. That can only be done outside of the US, and by an adult. It's therefore impossible for any US citizen to legally avoid paying tax at least once, assuming sufficient income to have to pay tax in…

Of course you can avoid paying tax at least once: on the day of your 18th birthday, weigh the options about leaving, leave, and renounce your citizenship.

Or, don't work until you decide to leave, and then leave.

That it requires very quick timing or unusual planning to end your obligation does not mean that you don't need to pay it when you are obliged to.

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

#365

Post by MCRed »

zaroth wrote: post #45
itistoday2 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "…

You could imagine reading it this way: DEA agents confronted the only black man in the train car and demanded he open his bags, shook him down, and stole his cash. In a brazen theft which DEA agents later claimed was legal under the veil of "civil forfeiture" the state prosecutor has refused to press charges, and the judge on the case has refused to provide relief for the plaintiff... I hope we continue to see a rele…

Source of the funds doesn't matter. What was stolen from me by the FBI was known to be clean, was not the profits of any crime.

They just took it.

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

#366

Post by Frondo »

Prophasi wrote: post #356
Frondo wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taxation isn't theft. The anti-tax crowd is just like the anti-vax crowd. They both want a free ride on the rest of our backs; the anti-vaxers want the benefit of herd immunity, and the anti-taxers want others to pay the cost of living in the modern world. (*edited to a missing word)

This can only be accurate for people who want literally $0 to be taken for taxes, in any form, by any level of government... and yet still expect services to be rendered. I don't know anyone like that, and I suspect they're in a tiny minority. For my part, I'd consider those taxes to be theft when they are used for purposes other than a strict list of constitutionally mandated purposes. The other things are services…

Many, many things exist in the world that don't exist in the constitution; it's a foundational body of law, not the entirety of the law.

As for not wanting something, but still being obligated to pay for it, there many transactions in the world where you have to pay for more than you want; no automaker will sell you a brand-new car with all of the seats missing, and very often when you go to a restaurant, even if you ask for some ingredient to be left out, you still pay full price for the meal.

That some of your taxes go to things you don't like does not mean you are free from paying for them.

The route to changing what your taxes go to is the political arena, not merely claiming that, because you don't like it, they're "theft".

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

#367

Post by Frondo »

techlibertarian wrote: post #274
Frondo wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taxation isn't theft. The anti-tax crowd is just like the anti-vax crowd. They both want a free ride on the rest of our backs; the anti-vaxers want the benefit of herd immunity, and the anti-taxers want others to pay the cost of living in the modern world. (*edited to a missing word)

> the anti-taxers want others to pay the cost of living in the modern world This simply isn't true. Anti-taxers want to choose where their dollars go - each and every one.

There are many transactions in the world where people pay for things they didn't specifically want, e.g. buying a car and getting all the seats and safety features, or ordering a meal and paying the full price even if you ask for some ingredient to be omitted.

In none of these cases--paying for a car where you'll take out the seats, paying for a meal where you don't get the mushrooms, paying taxes for government services you don't agree with--is the payment suddenly "theft".

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

#368

Post by MCRed »

a3n wrote: post #65
MCRed wrote: post #9

I really think we need to start using the word "steal" in headlines like this. "How the DEA stole a young man's life savings..." I remember when this was passed (yes I was alive way back in the Reagan era). I was astounded because I had just learned the concept of due process. I knew then that this was going to be bad, in fact, I was outraged then. This policy is the one that is a litmus test for me. You can't claim…

> the ballot box is the preferred one but the two parties have that locked down with controlled nomination processes so no third party will have a chance. Vote 3rd party, it's essentially "none of the above."

When I vote, I vote third party, believe me.

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

#370

Post by Zigurd »

MCRed wrote: post #21
waterlesscloud wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The key part for me is right here - "A DEA agent boarded the train at the Albuquerque Amtrak station and began asking various passengers, including Rivers, where they were going and why." Yeah, no. We've already crossed into unacceptable police behavior right there. There's no reason to suspect me of a crime, so you don't get to question me. At all. Forget whether or not it's smart for me to answer it, it's wrong for…

Not only that, but violating someone's 4th amendment rights is a crime, and in fact a felony under USC 18-242. That DEA agent (and every TSA agent, FWIW) belongs in jail for a long time. What is it when the laws only apply to you but not the government? In this case the law is specific to people doing the violation "under color of law".

This is why the individuals involved in these acts need to have their names and faces splashed in the news, and their homes picketed by protesters, for starters.

Individual discretion, but with collective protection and anonymity. That's not going to work.

Post reply on HN