4 ms·
This is a freeze, not a forfeiture. Once your money is frozen and you have no money for the very high priced lawyers necessary to get it back, this is a distin
by downandout 12y ago
This is a freeze, not a forfeiture.
Once your money is frozen and you have no money for the very high priced lawyers necessary to get it back, this is a distinction without a difference. The government's primary use of asset freezes is to paralyze a target's ability to defend themselves. Well financed defendants able to exercise their rights are a nuisance to bloodthirsty federal prosecutors, and executive orders like this one are designed to remove that nuisance. There is a reason that federal conviction rates are, for all intents and purposes, 100%.
- anigbrowl 12y agoYou know, I addressed that in the very next sentence. Maybe you could just slow down and read the whole thing a couple of times before leaping to disagree.
- woah 12y agoSo you are saying that this law will never impede anyone from paying for a lawyer? If the answer is "I don't know", the point still stands.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- downandout 12y agoI read it, I don't see where you addressed it.
- akshatpradhan 12y agoI can't see where its addressed either. Could OP update the comment?
- anigbrowl 12y agoI told you: in the very next sentence. Here is the second sentence of my previous post, again: Also, it won't affect people in terms of legal advice, plea deals etc. because it only applies to people who launch attacks on critical infrastructure from outside the country, and thus beyond the reach of US police. Sorry if this doesn't clear things up for you, but how much simpler do you expect me to make it? It is a pretty straightforward sentence, even though it does contain a small grammar mistake (it should read '...and are thus beyond the reach...').
- downandout 12y agoYou're stating that because someone is suspected of launching an attack from outside the US that they are "beyond the reach of US police". This is not a valid assumption. The US government has extradition agreements with most of the world's developed countries, and even where it doesn't, often applies political pressure to get what it wants. As an aside, this order is far more broad than you state here. It extends to people that have done business with them, in any capacity. That will in many cases extend to US citizens.
- akshatpradhan 12y agoThis is really important for people to understand and I don't think enough people are aware of this distinction. Thank you!