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

Post by gambiting » Wed, May 13, 2015, 8:13 AM UTC

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…

Post by tempestn » Wed, May 13, 2015, 8:16 AM UTC

jmstout wrote: post #30

Related: If you haven't seen John Oliver's segment on civil asset forfeiture, you should really check it out - https://youtu.be/3kEpZWGgJks

Post by authatheist » Wed, May 13, 2015, 8:17 AM UTC

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".

Post by ionised » Wed, May 13, 2015, 8:26 AM UTC

swombat wrote: post #170

ploxiln wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> In the US, you can talk about it, you can get a lawyer, you can have newspaper articles written. And is this helping Joseph Rivers, a victim of shameless organised theft and institutional racism? The "most people are unaffected" argument, which gets trotted out a lot, has a strong reek of the Martin Niemøller idea: ( http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007392 ) First they came for the Socialists, and…

Post by pjc50 » Wed, May 13, 2015, 8:29 AM UTC

minot wrote: post #106

hinkley wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand the claim that people with money could just use it all to buy a one way ticket to nowhere and never be seen again. But it seems to me that there's a very very wide line between "Use your money to keep doing bad things" and "We don't know if you're guilty but we're going to take all your money anyway and good luck with those legal costs" Certainly putting all of their assets into escrow and only allowing…

Can I just lock up all of some politician's fund right before an election and only allow access to fight the case which will likely take months? Can I do the same with a business? A multinational corporation? Freeze up all the assets of a bank and deny access to funds for any reason including payroll while we investigate? Where do we draw the line?