5 ms·

Government in this country is completely off the rails insane. At least ten-fifteen, heck twenty years ago you could sort of understand why certain policy decis

Government in this country is completely off the rails insane. At least ten-fifteen, heck twenty years ago you could sort of understand why certain policy decisions were made... nowadays it is like completely impossible to figure out what people in power are trying to actually accomplish.

Finnucane 9y ago
Really? It doesn't seem that hard to understand what motivates Jeff Sessions--filling up private prisons and using police to terrorize poor and minority communities.
- spoiledtechie 9y ago
  a bit bias I think you are. I voted you down because this isn't a productive conversation.
  - freddealmeida 9y ago
    the evidence speaks for itself. bias seems to be a norm in american politic
- harpiaharpyja 9y ago
  I suppose then the mystery has now shifted to why no one is seemingly doing anything about it? I hope that does not come across as sardonic. If a functional mechanism to curb these kinds of excesses does not exist anymore, that is something which we will have to come to terms with as a society.
- sremani 9y ago
  The nickname for (former AG under Obama) Loretta Lynch was Queen of Forfeiture, and has a body of work reflecting this when she was working in Brooklyn. It would be insane to think that civil forfeiture was not a problem the past 8 years.
  - specializeded 9y ago
    Not a single person in this entire thread has claimed it wasn’t a problem the last 8 years. Be better.
    - wernercd 9y ago
      But there are quite a few people losing their minds now that the "other side" is continuing to do what's been done for years. Forfeiture, bombing the Middle East, travel bans, etc So much stuff the current Administration is doing that the last Administration did... and NOW people are losing their shit. Just a bit questionable for a large part of the conversation to be started now, eh?
      - specializeded 9y ago
        The travel “bans” are not equivalent, first off. Second, try using Reddit’s search function or Google’s trends app to see just how devastatingly demonstrably wrong your claims about interest in bombing the Middle East or civil asset forfeiture are. Sort of looks like you’re the only one who’s just now giving a shit, eh?
        mcphage 9y ago
        > Sort of looks like you’re the only one who’s just now giving a shit, eh? And you'll note, they're not even giving a shit about asset forfeiture, or travel bans—they're giving a shit about people complaining about Trump.
        wernercd 9y ago
        The Travel Bans are re-markedly similar... based on a list of countries by the previous Administration. Bombing the Middle East broke all records during the last Administration... not that this one won't continue to break records, but we were at war for the entire previous Administration and will probably remain so for this one... I know of many cases of CAF during the previous Administration. I'm sad that the current administration doesn't seem to be restoring law and order to the degree I had hoped they would. I've given a shit for a long time. I live in a heavily one-sided state and I sit on the other side - so, for the most part, my vote doesn't matter. What DOES matter is that the stuff people are RAGING MAD!!!! about is stuff that, for a large part, is no different from before. You can nit-pick over minor differences between Travel bans... but there was NO care about those bans for the 8 years prior. My main point here... is people pick a team... and then lose their shit when their team loses. What's important isn't the Travel Ban (or whatever). Whats important is the "Other Guy's Quarterback" is calling the plays. Even if they are the same plays "My Quarterback" would have chosen - or has chosen repeatedly - NOW we are going to "resist". The hypocrisy is maddening - from both "sides".
- snsr 9y ago
  It's now possible for a drug dealer to serve time in a forfeiture-financed prison after being arrested by agents driving a forfeiture-provided automobile while working in a forfeiture-funded sting operation. — Reagan attorney general Richard Thornburgh in 1989 Replace "drug dealer" with "minority individual" and this quote would be as accurate today as it was in 1989.
csa 9y ago
The short justification made by those who support asset forfeiture is that it is helping fund state and local law enforcement efforts via ill-gotten gains (esp. drug money) in a time of budgetary constraints. This actually does not sound unreasonable on the surface if one holds a certain perspective of the law (my personal views differ). That said, the reality is that the asset forfeiture regulations are not well-formed, and the oversight is very far from where it needs to be given the extreme power these laws give to the law enforcement authorities. As such, this effectively leads to a money grab in some areas. This just strikes me as a case of making a potentially reasonable policy (if that's one's perspective on the world), but not creating the proper infrastructure to support it in a transparent way that mainstream citizens would find reasonable. As such, it is very prone to abuse. Note also that the biggest hauls give some federal agencies a tremendous amount budget flexibility. Again, the oversight for this is not well-formed, perhaps intentionally. Note that I personally do not agree with this line of thinking, but I just wanted to explain the perspectives of others who support these decisions.
- syshum 9y ago
  It is also a problem of people confusing CRIMINAL asset forfeiture, with CIVIL asset forfeiture. CRIMINAL asset forfeiture they can seize drug money provided they prove an individual committed a crime and link that asset to said crime beyond a reasonable doubt Civil Asset forfeiture they have do not have to prove a crime was committed, and the person has to prove they obtained the asset legally. Criminal Asset forfeiture if you can not afford a lawyer one is provided to you, Civil Asset forfeiture you are simply SOL, so if they take $10,000 from you, and a lawyer want $10,000 to fight your case well why bother? Civil Asset Forfeiture is a end run around due process and the constitution
  - criddell 9y ago
    Is part of the justification for asset forfeiture to prevent criminals from hiding assets? For example, if my wife (or girlfriend or brother or associate) buys an airplane and I use it to fly drugs from Mexico into the US, then without forfeiture laws I could be charged, but the airplane wouldn't be seized. Is that right? I've heard the argument that money is presumed guilty (or something to that affect) and I've never quite nailed down what that was all about. Does it make sense to you?
nogbit 9y ago
"...nowadays it is like completely impossible to figure out what people in power are trying to actually accomplish" Really? It's the same as it's ever been...they want more money, more control and more time.

Finnucane 9y ago

Really? It doesn't seem that hard to understand what motivates Jeff Sessions--filling up private prisons and using police to terrorize poor and minority communities.

spoiledtechie 9y ago
a bit bias I think you are. I voted you down because this isn't a productive conversation.
- freddealmeida 9y ago
  the evidence speaks for itself. bias seems to be a norm in american politic
harpiaharpyja 9y ago
I suppose then the mystery has now shifted to why no one is seemingly doing anything about it? I hope that does not come across as sardonic. If a functional mechanism to curb these kinds of excesses does not exist anymore, that is something which we will have to come to terms with as a society.
sremani 9y ago
The nickname for (former AG under Obama) Loretta Lynch was Queen of Forfeiture, and has a body of work reflecting this when she was working in Brooklyn. It would be insane to think that civil forfeiture was not a problem the past 8 years.
- specializeded 9y ago
  Not a single person in this entire thread has claimed it wasn’t a problem the last 8 years. Be better.
  - wernercd 9y ago
    But there are quite a few people losing their minds now that the "other side" is continuing to do what's been done for years. Forfeiture, bombing the Middle East, travel bans, etc So much stuff the current Administration is doing that the last Administration did... and NOW people are losing their shit. Just a bit questionable for a large part of the conversation to be started now, eh?
    - specializeded 9y ago
      The travel “bans” are not equivalent, first off. Second, try using Reddit’s search function or Google’s trends app to see just how devastatingly demonstrably wrong your claims about interest in bombing the Middle East or civil asset forfeiture are. Sort of looks like you’re the only one who’s just now giving a shit, eh?
      - mcphage 9y ago
        > Sort of looks like you’re the only one who’s just now giving a shit, eh? And you'll note, they're not even giving a shit about asset forfeiture, or travel bans—they're giving a shit about people complaining about Trump.
      - wernercd 9y ago
        The Travel Bans are re-markedly similar... based on a list of countries by the previous Administration. Bombing the Middle East broke all records during the last Administration... not that this one won't continue to break records, but we were at war for the entire previous Administration and will probably remain so for this one... I know of many cases of CAF during the previous Administration. I'm sad that the current administration doesn't seem to be restoring law and order to the degree I had hoped they would. I've given a shit for a long time. I live in a heavily one-sided state and I sit on the other side - so, for the most part, my vote doesn't matter. What DOES matter is that the stuff people are RAGING MAD!!!! about is stuff that, for a large part, is no different from before. You can nit-pick over minor differences between Travel bans... but there was NO care about those bans for the 8 years prior. My main point here... is people pick a team... and then lose their shit when their team loses. What's important isn't the Travel Ban (or whatever). Whats important is the "Other Guy's Quarterback" is calling the plays. Even if they are the same plays "My Quarterback" would have chosen - or has chosen repeatedly - NOW we are going to "resist". The hypocrisy is maddening - from both "sides".
snsr 9y ago
It's now possible for a drug dealer to serve time in a forfeiture-financed prison after being arrested by agents driving a forfeiture-provided automobile while working in a forfeiture-funded sting operation. — Reagan attorney general Richard Thornburgh in 1989 Replace "drug dealer" with "minority individual" and this quote would be as accurate today as it was in 1989.

csa 9y ago

The short justification made by those who support asset forfeiture is that it is helping fund state and local law enforcement efforts via ill-gotten gains (esp. drug money) in a time of budgetary constraints. This actually does not sound unreasonable on the surface if one holds a certain perspective of the law (my personal views differ). That said, the reality is that the asset forfeiture regulations are not well-formed, and the oversight is very far from where it needs to be given the extreme power these laws give to the law enforcement authorities. As such, this effectively leads to a money grab in some areas. This just strikes me as a case of making a potentially reasonable policy (if that's one's perspective on the world), but not creating the proper infrastructure to support it in a transparent way that mainstream citizens would find reasonable. As such, it is very prone to abuse. Note also that the biggest hauls give some federal agencies a tremendous amount budget flexibility. Again, the oversight for this is not well-formed, perhaps intentionally. Note that I personally do not agree with this line of thinking, but I just wanted to explain the perspectives of others who support these decisions.

syshum 9y ago
It is also a problem of people confusing CRIMINAL asset forfeiture, with CIVIL asset forfeiture. CRIMINAL asset forfeiture they can seize drug money provided they prove an individual committed a crime and link that asset to said crime beyond a reasonable doubt Civil Asset forfeiture they have do not have to prove a crime was committed, and the person has to prove they obtained the asset legally. Criminal Asset forfeiture if you can not afford a lawyer one is provided to you, Civil Asset forfeiture you are simply SOL, so if they take $10,000 from you, and a lawyer want $10,000 to fight your case well why bother? Civil Asset Forfeiture is a end run around due process and the constitution
- criddell 9y ago
  Is part of the justification for asset forfeiture to prevent criminals from hiding assets? For example, if my wife (or girlfriend or brother or associate) buys an airplane and I use it to fly drugs from Mexico into the US, then without forfeiture laws I could be charged, but the airplane wouldn't be seized. Is that right? I've heard the argument that money is presumed guilty (or something to that affect) and I've never quite nailed down what that was all about. Does it make sense to you?

nogbit 9y ago

"...nowadays it is like completely impossible to figure out what people in power are trying to actually accomplish" Really? It's the same as it's ever been...they want more money, more control and more time.