Slashdot Mirror
CBC Warns Canadians of "US Law Enforcement Money Extortion Program"
jfbilodeau writes The CBC is warning Canadians about a U.S. program where America law enforcement officers — from federal agents to state troopers right down to sheriffs in one-street backwaters — are operating a vast, co-ordinated scheme to grab as much of the public's cash as they can through seizure laws. "So, for any law-abiding Canadian thinking about an American road trip, here’s some non-official advice: Avoid long chats if you’re pulled over. Answer questions politely and concisely, then persistently ask if you are free to go. Don’t leave litter on the vehicle floor, especially energy drink cans. Don’t use air or breath fresheners; they could be interpreted as an attempt to mask the smell of drugs. Don’t be too talkative. Don’t be too quiet. Try not to wear expensive designer clothes. Don’t have tinted windows. And for heaven’s sake, don’t consent to a search if you are carrying a big roll of legitimate cash.
The link is bad. American shakedown: Police won't charge you, but they'll grab your money
As a U.S. citizen, I'm baffled as to why courts have accepted the validity of civil forfeiture laws. It strikes me as a blatant violation of our Constitution.
When nationalistic Americans brag about our Bill or Rights, I wonder which version they're excited about: the version one gets from a plain reading of its text, or the twisted monstrosity that the three branches of government have foisted upon us.
American police run an extra-legal extortion racket in the name of RICO laws. They can impound property giving the citizen no legal recourse. What do they do with the money? Buy military style riot gear and surplus MRAPS. Boy, I feel safer.
No, the police are thieves.
And for heaven’s sake, don’t consent to a search if you are carrying a big roll of legitimate cash.
You never consent to a search. Make them get a warrant or conduct an illegal search. You may have just bought the car. It may have absolutely NOTHING personal in it. You still don't consent to a search.
Period.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Or you forced departments to pay back double or triple plus court costs for improper seizures.They'd suddenly be much more careful.
No.
If police want to seize anything, they should charge the citizen with the appropriate crime, and take him or her to court. Anything else is unconstitutional BS.
Yes, not having the proceeds go to charity just turns it into an open invitation for corruption (and any PD that depends on these funds for operating expenses is certainly corrupt), but the problem is deeper than that.
When I go on a road trip I always carry enough cash to buy gas to get to my destination should my credit card stop working.
I got pulled over in Nebraska and when I was getting my license out of my wallet the officer saw a $100 bill in there and ended up confiscating the $400 I had on me as suspected drug money without ever arresting me or even charging me with a crime.
I got a receipt and an affidavit indicating the amount seized and why. I petitioned the court for the return of my money and the court denied me saying that possession of that much cash constituted probable cause of drug activity and that I should be happy not to be in jail for drugs.
The real source is this Washington Post article(s).
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Utter and complete bullshit. The asset forfeiture regime was introduced under the Presidentâ(TM)s Commission on Organized Crime in 1986, at which time the President was Republican Saint Ronald Reagan, and was ramped up through the GHW Bush administration.
Not that I absolve the Democrats in any way of their part is this travesty, but make no mistake...when Republicans have their way, this is *exactly* the sort of corrupt power grab they are famous for.
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
The next line won't be "Okay, gtfo."
It'll be: "Sir, please step out of the car."
CBC's article is just a Canadian take on things. The original article (just as scary) is here:
Well, yes. But it's hardly "original" -- this is a problem that has been profiled extensively for years, yet few people seem to realize how far it extends. A couple of times over the past year, when posters on Slashdot mentioned random forfeitures that happened to them, they were met with comments saying, "You must have done something suspicious" or "What's the rest of the story," and I tried to provide links to point out the systemic problem, but have been met with ignorance and resistance.
For a sample of past coverage, here's an extensive piece from The New Yorker a year ago, a piece from Reason in 2012, a piece from Forbes in 2011, pieces in Slate and The Economist from 2010, a detailed piece on NPR from 2008, etc., etc., etc. Here's an extensive account of problems with the system from PBS almost 15 years ago (around the time that legal reform forced money to go to local municipalities in many cases rather than the federal government). The ACLU has been fighting this for decades.
I know some people here may be well aware of this problem, and others may find this shocking and new. Regardless, it's very sad that it may take other countries' shaming us into taking action to fix an unjust assault on our citizens that has been going on for many years.
Neatly proving that you don't have a clue. Read this and see how asset forfeiture happens in the real world.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Posting AC just because:
The US revolution was unique. Essentially it was one government breaking away from another government, and not an overthrow of the current one.
People don't know how serious a revolution gets, which is why I respect the zeal of groups like the three-percenters, but I consider them foolish since they are not going to effect change by threatening armed revolt. Instead, they need to change what they do at the ballot box, not at the ammo box. Some things about revolution:
1: It will be stopped quickly. If push came to shove, .40 pistols and AR-15s won't do much against mercenary troops, UAVs, gunships, and Sarin gas containers. One brief shock and awe treatment, and most "revolutionaries" will be slapping the Flexicuffs on themselves and their families.
2: It will be violent. Most Americans are not used to real violence. At most, they play Call of Duty.
3: In a revolution, the most brutal and violent psychopaths will be running the show. ISIS shows what happens when there is a power vacuum and the result of no government in a region. Almost every professor at the university I went to who worked/taught in that region said a group like ISIS would form, and they were right.
4: What group would end up on top? Christianity is declining, and Islam is destined to be the top US religion in ten years (well, materialism is the #1 religion in the US, but spending a life chasing the dollar isn't really "official"). Would people want the US to end up like Iraq with sectarian violence forever and ever, separated by racial and religious lines? I'm sure a lot of people worldwide would love this, but not people living here.
5: There are players sitting on the sidelines. The US is the world's #1 food exporter, to the point where many nations would starve if shipments ceased. If the US government got weak enough, it would be inevitable that China would invade so they would have a secure, fertile area for crop growing. Already, they have a monopoly on pork companies in the US (which is why the price of bacon has doubled this past week.) Other players would love a chunk of the US territory, be it a return of Texas to Mexico, or a Middle Eastern nation deciding they are tired of the region and choose one of the Carolinas as a new Damascus or Dubai. What happened to the native Americans can easily happen to the current US population should the government get weak.
6: The US is a mitigating power globally. Should the US weaken and stop being a player, it would only be a matter of time before the Pacific Rim got hot. If one thinks the Middle East is bad, wait until China, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, even Australia start battling it out over racial and territorial disputes. China is getting belligerent , and Japan is re-militarizing.
Europe would be affected. For more than half a century, Western Europe had to spend almost nothing on defense. With the US gone, they would have to raise an army, or just watching as the ISIS map becomes a reality. The current European doctrine of Chamberlain-esque constant appeasement can only go so far. Would Germany want to split into the FRG and GDR again in order to avoid war with Russia? Do they want to return to Bonn for all government function? Would Spain mind having Arabic be its only official language? These scenarios would almost invariably happen if it were not for the US.
7: I'm sure people celebrate this, but even though states' rights are "cool", such as the Colorado candidate for governor who wants to take ownership of all Federal land and sell/privatize it, a bunch of states will be easily overrun by a foreign invasion force. The only reason why hostile actors have not fought wars on US soil directly in a century is the "united" part of the US.
8: People forget that the US government was hammered out as a 13 way compromise. Think that would happen again in this climate where the government shuts down almost every non-election year (and people forget th
You don't need to be greedy. Simply requiring the law enforcement to pay interest and to pay attorney fees should be sufficient.
That might help US Citizens, but Canadians just driving through aren't going to want to halt their life, go back to the country that ripped them off, find a reputable attorney that knows these laws, and then come back AGAIN for the court date, unless it's a pretty large amount of goods stolen by the authorities. After all, not only do they run the risk of getting skimmed again, they also run the risk of getting scammed by their lawyer, AND they have to pay room/board/transportation PLUS take the extra time off work required for the visits. Most people I know just took it as a lesson not to visit that part of the US again and cut their losses.
So did Germans in Nazi Germany.
Not really. The Nazis got control of the Reichstag by forming a plurality coalition government with other fringe parties, then negotiated with Germany's two MAIN political parties (neither of which had a majority, but both of which had pluralities that were larger than the number of Nazis, but smaller than the coalition of minor parties assembled by the Nazis) to convince them that allowing them to be nominally in charge was a lesser evil than cooperating with their traditional arch-rivals.
At the risk of getting downmodded, the Nazi takeover of Germany's government is basically the same thing that happened to the US when the Tea Party ended up with enough seats in Congress to be disruptive, without actually being able to seize outright power. We just got damn lucky that they ended up being just a few seats short of achieving their goals before Americans realized how completely nuts most of them were.
I say this with direct first-hand knowledge, because I went to college and used to be friends with some of them... there are Tea Party strategists who've studied the Nazi Party's rise to power, their tactics, and the strategies that worked. The Nazis won tiny victories, then had some of the finest filmmakers to ever walk the earth produce documentaries that were mostly fiction, but had enough truth to be accepted by many as plausible. Many of those strategists are vaguely aware that they're playing with fire, but have NO IDEA just how dangerous the game they're playing can become almost overnight.
There's a reason why the Nazis held their biggest public events at night. They used the same tricks modern directors use to turn a few dozen extras into a cheering crowd big enough to fill a stadium. They herded the attendees into crowded areas, then blinded them with arc lights so they couldn't see that the stadium was mostly empty. They deafened them with loudspeakers that amplified the (small) crowd ITSELF. And creatively edited in footage from unrelated sporting events (that DID have large crowds) to convince everyone who saw the newsreel a few days later -- including the relatively small number of attendees at the event itself -- that it was WAY bigger than it really was.
In many cases, elected Nazi officials did things that were blatantly illegal, or at least ambiguously taboo, and did it amidst a media firestorm they stoked with contrived moral outrage. They piled HUGE lies onto small lies, knowing that people would dismiss the big ones, but believe the more reasonable-sounding small ones. And every step of the way, they built up the exploits they got away until German voters started to believe they were legitimate, if not respectable.
Truth be told, most Nazi voters were fairly normal people. Many of them DID think the party's leadership was kind of nuts, but swallowed their propaganda hook, line, and sinker. The Nazis used the same tactics used by modern religious cults to draw in families, then convinced them to cut off contact with friends and family members who left the party... and socially-pressure them into publicly displaying their support for the Nazi party, even if they privately voted for someone else.
We NEED to study and understand the Nazis. Not because they were in any way, shape, or form admirable (or even non-reprehensible), but because their tactics are alive & well today, and being actively used against us, and most people are fucking OBLIVIOUS to it. Over the past 70 years, we've hyperfocused so much on Nazi concentration camps that we've completely forgotten how they managed to totally pwn Germany itself... and as a result, we (Americans) don't recognize what we're seeing now as the latest manifestation of the same tactics that finally allowed them to take control of Germany, even WITHOUT a real majority. In a very real sense, the Nazis lost the ground war, but perversely won an enduring victory in the public relations realm that has scarred our society with an eternal belief that the Nazis wer