WinterBorn
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #21
I was reading an article Since 2007, the DEA has taken $3.2 billion in cash from people not charged with a crime
$3.2 billion in cash seized from people who were never charged with a crime? How is this legal or constitutional? And since the departments who do the seizure get to KEEP THE MONEY, how is there not some serious judicial oversight?
There are few things more wrong than for law enforcement to be able to simply confiscate someone's money or property because they insist it is crime related, but not have to show any crime.
Sounds like a far left wet dream!
But since the Washington Post is a far left hack site, I would take it with grain of salt, much like the onion.
From the article:
In a written response to the Inspector General, the Department of Justice said it had "significant concerns" with the report, noting that global criminal enterprises launder trillions of dollars annually and calling asset forfeiture "a critical tool to fight the current heroin and opioid epidemic that is raging in the United States."
It also took issue with the Inspector General's analysis of the 100 DEA cash seizures it examined, saying more of them were connected with criminal activity than the report suggested.
But since Trump is in office I would expect something like this by the far left.
It is not about left or right. It is about US citizens having their assets seized without be charged with a crime.
How can you justify taking someone's money simply because they have a relatively large sum in cash? No crime committed, just a large sum of cash.
When you use an overly biased source, the far left Washington Post, it is left or right.
As the overly biased article you used was incorrect.
Find another source for your argument, not one so far to the left and then you can make such claims.
The far left love to take others money and redistribute. They claim so many are not paying their fair share. What difference does it make?
The IRS takes millions that does not belong to them, yet you have no problem with that.
What about not paying taxes on your house and you loosing said house just because you did not pay the government their share?
It is all part of the same plan.
If you think you own property, think again!
All of those are great points, but irrelevant to the topic.
When cops can pull someone over and seize cash, just because the driver has a lot of cash, something is seriously wrong.
If you want to waste time moaning about the Washington Post, go ahead. If you have any evidence that the DEA has NOT seized $3.2 billion in assets from people who were never charged with a crime, I will happily admit you are right and take this down.
And you want me to prove a negative..
Another loss in your column, just admit you should have used a more unbiased source, maybe like the DEA site itself.
Then your little rant about left or right would have been spot on, but using an overly biased source does not help you in way, no matter how you want to spin it.
And cops can seize the cash when they pull you over, in a search in seizure mode.
At that point t5hey can take anything they need for evidence, so once again your far left argument falls flat on it's face.
And the article does not make that example of cops just randomly pulling people and seizing cash, just because they can. Anything else you have there?
Take anything they need for evidence? Evidence of what? If no charges are filed, they still get to keep it? Why does that not piss you off?
And when their seize the assets, the victim has to hire a lawyer to get their assets back. No assumption of innocence. Quite the contrary, there is the assumption of guilt, and you have to prove your innocence.
Here is a link to a more rightwing group: Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture
And another: Has asset forfeiture gone too far? Truck seizure case sparks outrage, a call for change
And another: Reining in Civil Asset Forfeiture Abuse
And another: Civil Asset Forfeiture: A System in Need of Reform
There are 4 articles, from conservative groups, talking about the rampant abuses of the civil asset forfeiture laws. Can you go with the actual topic now? Or are you unable to do anything except waving your arms and scream "You're a liberal!"?