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

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

#371

Post by dalke » Wed, May 13, 2015, 5:29 PM UTC

Frondo wrote: post #364

dalke wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well in that case, there's no reason to pay taxes at all - simply don't every earn enough to pay taxes. But that's an absurd solution. Otherwise you would have said "You do give consent by continuing to live here past the age of maturity and making enough money to be taxed". (I assume that the major issue is income tax, not sales tax.)

In any case, the current cost to renounce your citizenship is $2,350. You might say it's a "fee" and not a "tax". That label is irrelevant in the overarching context of financial obligations imposed upon a person. Otherwise the US should just charge everyone a fee for having US citizenship and forget about the whole "tax" issue.

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

#372

Post by Karunamon » Wed, May 13, 2015, 5:40 PM UTC

Frondo wrote: post #366

Prophasi wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The tax argument aside - my understanding is if the constitution doesn't provide for it, the federal government shouldn't be doing it.

10th amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

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

#373

Post by dba7dba » Wed, May 13, 2015, 5:54 PM UTC

myth_buster wrote: post #354

dba7dba wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 respectfully disagree with your defense as it's speculative.

Iwo Jima? And ALL other Japanese islands that had to be conquered?

## EDIT I don't mean to be dismissive but anyone with even remote knowledge of what went on to recapture all the Japanese held islands in the Pacific during the WW2 will say the nukes were needed.

On all the islands that US Marines/soldiers fought on to recapture from Japan, Japanese units were usually wiped to the last man. And this kind of resistance to the last man was repeated on every single island.

Example, Saipan island. Out of 31,000 Japanese soldiers, only 921 were captured. 24000 were killed and 5000 committed suicide. 22000 Japanese civilians died, mostly from suicides.

US suffered 3426 killed and 10364 wounded.

For an island of 44 square miles.

## end EDIT

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

#374

Post by copsarebastards » Wed, May 13, 2015, 5:54 PM UTC

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 "…

It's not just theft, it's conspiracy to commit armed robbery.

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

#375

Post by harryh » Wed, May 13, 2015, 6:02 PM UTC

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.

Assets aren't forfeited without evidence of guilt.

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

#376

Post by ebrenes » Wed, May 13, 2015, 6:14 PM UTC

Frondo wrote: post #209

itistoday2 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You are free to move to another country. Please explain how I can do that. I would actually like to move to Switzerland, could you explain how I can freely do that as everything I've researched indicates it's neither free nor possible in any reasonable amount of time. If not Switzerland I'll settle for some other country where I can live freely and be safe from coercion. > If no automobile maker will sell you the e…

You can leave the U.S. whenever you want. The U.S. isn't restricting your ability to leave. If the country of your choice doesn't permit you to emigrate, that doesn't mean that you're suddenly free from your obligations to whatever country will host you. Wouldn't that be convenient? "Sir, I don't have to pay taxes. I want to move to Switzerland, but they're full right now, so I can't." (And the "threat of prison" is…

While you can theoretically leave the U.S. whenever you want, you cannot stop paying taxes whenever you want.

You have to renounce citizenship, pay a fine for renouncing said citizenship to avoid paying taxes and possibly be audited. And you might argue that's fine, because they should be able to collect back taxes but you'll generally have to pay taxes for the next 10 years.

So, putting aside the immigration issues, and assuming you could move to wherever you wanted it's still not possible.

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

#377

Post by pav7en » Wed, May 13, 2015, 6:27 PM UTC

myth_buster wrote: post #354

dba7dba wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 respectfully disagree with your defense as it's speculative.

No, it's not speculative

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Estimated_ca...

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

#378

Post by bruceb » Wed, May 13, 2015, 6:30 PM UTC

patrickaljord wrote: post #275

Frondo wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, I hear this attitude all the time. I think it reflects lazy thinking, and the conflation of cynicism and "cool". Yes, money in politics is a corrupting influence, yes, neither major party gets it right on some big issues (like the size of our military and how ready we are to use it, how much wall street gets away with ripping us off, etc), but are they the same? No, of course not. Had McCain won in 2008, th…

ObamaCare was pretty much the same thing as RomneyCare so yes, we'd probably have the same thing. Can we stop pretending there's a difference?

I didn't see McCain proposing RomneyCare, hell didn't see Romeny proposing RomneyCare. So no we would not have had the same thing.

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

#379

Post by mikeash » Wed, May 13, 2015, 6:34 PM UTC

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 "…

There's a great deal of reluctance in the media to use anything but official terms for these things. For a widespread recent example, see the constant usage of "enhanced interrogation" and a complete absence of the word "torture" except when repeating its usage by someone else.

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

#380

Post by mikeash » Wed, May 13, 2015, 6:39 PM UTC

steve19 wrote: post #27

I do not dispute that this is very unfair (and thats putting it mildly).... ... but did the Washington Post bother finding out if this man was involved in criminal activity? It does not make this law any less unfair, but surely it makes a difference in the outrage in this case. People are not upset when cartel members have their planes and jewelry confiscated. Proving your life savings are in fact legally earned shou…

The idea that we should temper our outrage at government misbehavior based on how much the target seemed to deserve it is an unbelievably dangerous one.

We should be just as outraged when the government violates the rights of a total scumbag as we are when they violate the rights of an upstanding citizen. To do anything less is to make a total lie of the idea that we have any rights at all.

Imagine if the government censored a movie and the response was, well, before we get all outraged at this blatant violation of freedom of speech, what if the movie was about really bad stuff? Well, there's no point in "freedom of speech" if it only protects the things everybody likes.