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

281–290 of 455 posts

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

#281

Post by norea-armozel »

leap_ahead wrote: post #221

Russian citizen here. This sort of things I have regularly been hearing about the US over the last decade make me really sad. Some 20 years ago America was a symbol of civil liberties for us. I considered one day maybe going there to work and live. A few years ago I still entertained an idea of going there for an internship. Today I'd be scared to go there even as a tourist or on a short business trip. Let's say I go…

It's always been a part of the American mindset. Look at how Prohibition began to see the connections between the various religious groups and the current groups calling for stricter drug laws. Such groups just have no concept of the social and biological causes of drug abuse. And they would rather punish society at large for what amounts to an illness. I guess it's easier to be tough on drugs/crime/etc than work towards a real solution.

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

#282

Post by exo762 »

anigbrowl wrote: post #146
ubersync wrote: post #72

Wouldn't happen with bitcoins.

It wouldn't have happened with a visa or mastercard either. Bitcoin has literally nothing to do with this.

Apparently it does happen with bank accounts. So no, your point does not stand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...

EDIT: In fact Bitcoin is much better protected against this. m-of-n signatures, brain wallets, hardware devices such as Tresor, etc.

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

#283

Post by wmil »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #269
tsotha wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'm not reading about the massive backlog of forfeiture cases, mostly it seems like people don't even try. For two reasons. One, you can't afford a lawyer because the government took your money. And two, there's not a lot of point in spending $300k to get $12.5k back from the government. The DEA is using tax dollars - they can stretch out the proceedings until you run out of money.

>And two, there's not a lot of point in spending $300k to get $12.5k back from the government. // Don't injured parties receive costs from the perpetrators in USA courts? The risk may not be worth it but provided you have reasonable legal costs they get paid, surely? Also if the action is without due process or is malicious then you'd get punitive damages as well wouldn't you [which would have to be high to discourag…

In general, not unless the judge rules the claim was made in bad faith. There are some specific exceptions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney%27s_fee#Who_pays

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

#284

Post by jessaustin »

m_mueller wrote: post #258
jessaustin wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks to Solyndra etc., I doubt we'll hear much from the Dems about that.

I don't see what's the big deal there - a bailout is a bailout, it's not an ideal situation for anyone, but it's far better than the alternatives of just letting all promising companies fail. If they can't defend that, how can they defend the banking bailouts of 2008/2009?

To my way of thinking, Solyndra is far more defensible than the bank bailouts, especially when you look at it in the context of Tesla and other companies they've funded. However, that's not how it plays politically, and there's really nothing Democrats can do about that in the short-to-medium term. Besides, Tesla still has something of an "elite" flavor, so bragging about "saving" it (which probably isn't true, but they did help) doesn't get them much credit from voters who don't even know anyone who owns a Tesla.

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

#285

Post by falcolas »

pionar wrote: post #250
justthistime_ wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't this just mean that the will rob you _and_ additionally charge you with some made-up crime and let you rot in jail until you sign the plea deal?

> additionally charge you with some made-up crime and let you rot in jail until you sign the plea deal There are supposed to be other protections for this. The sixth amendment, for instance, says: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial...", which means that they can't just "let you rot in jail." In practice, though, sometimes you do rot in jail. :/

Speedy public trials, in this day and age, can take a year or more from the time of conviction.

That's a long time to spend in jail - a location where you have no real freedoms.

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

#286

Post by evanpw »

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 "…

I agree with your conclusion, but this is an example of the "worst argument in the world": http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_noncentral_fallacy_the_worst...

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

#287

Post by father_of_two »

Qantourisc wrote: post #101

As a potential tourist or traveller (I am not to be fair), I wouldn't risk travelling to the US. I'm not sure if there are actual tourists who feel the same, but I'm sure there are other avoiding the US.

Ditto. We have been hearing so many negative things about the US that it really scares even to think going there, being it as a tourist, on business, whatever.

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

#289

Post by [deleted] »

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 "…

[deleted]

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

#290

Post by soylentcola »

spacemanmatt wrote: post #255
kzrdude wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like a semi-criminalization of cash in practice.

Not at all. They steal bank accounts, boats, cars, and houses as well.

Sure, but I've got about as much money in my bank account (as opposed to cash) and nobody has ever asked me to prove it wasn't gained illicitly if I wanted it back. I've got friends with boats, I've owned cars, and currently living in a house owned by my SO. None of us has been targeted just for having those things.

While I'm sure that they wouldn't hesitate to seize those assets if any of us were charged with some sort of drug offense, it doesn't come close to the way cash is treated. In this case and in others, the mere possession of a large sum of cash can be grounds for suspicion and seizure. It's like you don't really have a right to keep your money unless it's accessed via some plastic card or routing number.

Post reply on HN