Slashdot Mirror
Eric Holder Severely Limits Civil Forfeiture
gurps_npc writes: As most people know, the US has for quite some time let police seize pretty much anything they wanted to, forcing you to go to court to get back your stuff (at significant expense). Most of the problems came about because the Federal government let the local cops keep most of what they took.
Eric Holder, the U.S. Attorney General, has changed the rules of that program, making it more difficult for the police to do it under the federal program. They can still use local state programs, but that accounts for only about 57% of the cash taken. Holder did not end the program entirely — he left in some exceptions for things like explosives, weapons, and items related to child pornography, which all together amount to about 1% of the current federal program. Still, with this action he will have struck a serious blow to a despicable practice that serious newspapers and comedy TV shows decried as nothing more than legalized theft.
Eric Holder, the U.S. Attorney General, has changed the rules of that program, making it more difficult for the police to do it under the federal program. They can still use local state programs, but that accounts for only about 57% of the cash taken. Holder did not end the program entirely — he left in some exceptions for things like explosives, weapons, and items related to child pornography, which all together amount to about 1% of the current federal program. Still, with this action he will have struck a serious blow to a despicable practice that serious newspapers and comedy TV shows decried as nothing more than legalized theft.
You know someone is going to come in and say this is awful because reasons, because it was done under the Obama administration by Eric Holder.
...but it's being eaten...by some...Linux or something...
is retroactively execute everyone involved in prior illegal property theft so it never happens again. What makes anyone think these sociopath cops will follow the new laws?
Normally the antics of Mr. Holder really piss me off. But this? This is awesome!
Given the administration's assaults on civil rights, I've got to wonder what the catch is. Does this now mean that the corrupt police departments get to keep all of the proceeds under state laws? Has anyone done an analysis on this?
I think this is a great first step, but practically speaking how will it affect local police departments operating under state or municipal laws?
I'll bet this totally will stop the government from doing this stuff.
And thus be seen for the closet corporate fascists that they are. Holder didn't go far enough, and neither did Obama (He never so much as mentioned it). The practice needs to end nationally, via federal law.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
"...serious newspapers and comedy TV shows..."
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
That someone will be the GOP. I can see them trying to spin this as Obama's "war on cops". They're very predictable in opposing anything Democrats do no matter how rational it is.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
Which civil rights do you imagine they assaulted?
How does the Justice Department end it nationally? Even if they get Congress to cooperate? About the only way the Federal Government can legally mandate state law enforcement actions is through the Constitution. The Supreme Court would have to notice that this practice is against the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
But he's correct. Even when "Obummer"'s administration does something demonstrably good that sharply aligns with the folks who hate him, they will minimize it rather than provide the accolades he deserves.
The GOP maybe, but this has been a hot-button issue for conservatives for a while, and the current sentiment is "wait, who did this wonderful thing, I must have heard you wrong". The difference between conservatives and the GOP is left as an exercise for the reader.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
So the ATF can still come at you and take everything you own but the rest of the TLAs are limited. A good start.
Depends which part of the GOP you are talking about though (As the Republican party is not some giant monolithic lock step party). The Republicans that are concerned about civil liberties (ie, those who didn't think about civil liberties when the patriot act was first signed, but have regretted it) will support this move. They have seen how this program has been abused by law enforcement agencies and needs to be curtailed.
(BTW, the democrats are very predictable in opposing anything republicans do, no matter how rational it is).
I have absolutely no problem with forfeiture under the right situations. I think it would be a great way to institute self deportation if the feds took all the possessions of anyone here illegally whether they are a wall street banker who overstayed a visa .. or a tech employee working in silicon valley or if they work in the fields picking lettuce of which only 5% of migrants work in agriculture so the fools that think they are all cutting your grass and picking lettuce.. your wrong they are working in every industry at every level... Its projected by the obama administration that there are 30 million people who came here illegally who will apply for legal status in the next 2 years. There are laws on the books in California already that you can not discriminate when hiring an illegal alien over an american citizen...
That means if you need a job its now illegal to not hire an illegal instead of you.
I say give everyone here illegally 6 months to get out and they can take everything they have.
Stay past that then the feds take your money, cars, real estate, 401k at Microsoft or Google or Apple.. they take every thing.
The country will empty out in about a year once a few people living on 5th avenue or in Malibu in 30 million dollar homes have everything taken...
But i disagree with taking peoples stuff and not giving it back if they are citizens not suspected of serious crimes like treason or terrorism..
Thats just not right.. if you break the law you should pay.. but forfeiting everything has to be considered part of the punishment.
I am not sure it is...
So don't lock up the illegals .. just have bounty hunters find them.. then give the bounty hunter 50% of their possessions and use the other 50% to deport them... don't matter if its a 1978 chevy pickup or a 5th ave penthouse .. take it sell it deport them then ban them
But give them 6 months to a year to get out and take what they have.
Local and state police used to be able to federalize their seizures to keep it beyond the reach of laws governing civil forfeiture. That protection is gone now.
The justice department is part of the executive branch, not Congress. This is the US Marshals, FBI, Secret Service, and so on. Holder is saying those Federal law enforcement agencies will no longer use civil forfeiture. Holder is in the correct position to make this happen. It could also have happened if Congress passed a law making it illegal, but enforcement is up to the executive, and law enforcement is up to the justice dept, specifically Eric Holder.
Holder has decided to go out on a high note. It almost makes up for all of his jack assery for the last 6 years.
RTFA next time -
"Last Friday, Sens. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) and Mike Lee (R-Utah), along with Reps. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) and John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), signed a letter calling on Holder to end Equitable Sharing."
Republicans called for this to happen.
RTFA - Republicans called for this to happen.
"Last Friday, Sens. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) and Mike Lee (R-Utah), along with Reps. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) and John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), signed a letter calling on Holder to end Equitable Sharing."
i.e. Paper, diaries, records, pens, pencils, printers, mobile phones, cameras, camcorders, tapes (audio, video and data), photographs, film, computers, hard drives, removable mass storage, RAM, modems and network equipment.
And the evil he committed greatly outweighed the few good deeds he might have accomplished. History will judge Holder the same.
Take a "clear cut" situation. During a border inspection a car is found heavily modified full of secret compartments. In the compartments the border agents discover a couple pounds of designer drugs, a Class-3/Tax Stamp worthy weapon of some sort, and $20,000 in cash.
What should they do with the X?
What should they do with the machine gun?
What should they do with the $20,000?
What should they do with the car?
I'm not advocating any position here - just asking the question.
I'm not hailing this as the end of abusive laws in the US but this is DAMNED good news.Bravo!
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
Since the Obama administration (and, as I shouldn't need to say, pretty much everyone in the past and present congress and other administrations) supports things such as the NSA's mass surveillance and the TSA... just about everyone's.
The Republicans that are concerned about civil liberties (ie, those who didn't think about civil liberties when the patriot act was first signed
Hint: Those people don't care about civil liberties. They saw an opportunity to seize power and did so at a time where many people were foolishly emotional and therefore gullible. It happens every time there's a significant disaster. These people only pretend that they're sorry later, and that goes for all of them, not just republicans.
Heck, even when he does something they've been stumping for in the first place, they'll turn around and lambaste him for it!
This Republican (Goldwater wing) praises Holder's action, the very first time I have ever done this. Let's just hope the announcement is for is real, and as far-reaching as the news reports claim. No police power has been more abused over the years than property seizure. Civil forfeiture is the reason why conservatives have hated cops for years, before police malpractice went racial and therefore attracted the attention of liberals.
I'm hoping that in 2017 President Paul makes them give every stolen dime back, with interest. Property seizure should in every case be the result if a court judgement, not police action for thoughtcrime.
There are laws on the books in California already that you can not discriminate when hiring an illegal alien over an american citizen
[citation needed]
I'm suffering from cognitive dissonance seeing that combination of names all supporting something that's beneficial to the people in general.
RTFA next time -
"Last Friday, Sens. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) and Mike Lee (R-Utah), along with Reps. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) and John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), signed a letter calling on Holder to end Equitable Sharing."
Republicans called for this to happen.
I'm confused as to what point you are trying to make. Are you suggesting that just because this is a policy they supported, and indeed requested, they won't use it to lambast their opponents in future elections? If so, there is no historical evidence supporting this.
He ended the war in Iraq.
He ended the war in Arghanistan.
Now he's starting to end the War on Drugs.
"President Paul"??? Keep dreaming bro.
Nope. Too bad you didn't RTFA, then again even if you did you probably would still make the same ignorant remark.
There is no good reason, under any circumstances, for pretrial forfeiture. If you have probable cause (the Constitutional standard for police procedure in the field) to suspect a person of the crimes you describe, arrest and charge him. If he is subsequently found guilty, THEN taking his stuff can be a part of the punishment.
The reason police love civil forfeiture is that is is used only in situations where a suspect is not arrested. An arrest triggers a series of Constitutional protections, while civil forfeiture takes place outside of this legal firewall.
Except that only racists care about this shit. Normal tolerant people are fine with amnesty, because being an illegal immigrant is a victimless crime, and if they work, they spend, and that is good for everyone... so no one that matters gives a crap about this, not unlike cannabis use, which, coincidentally enough, only racists care about also. I think we'd be far better served as a society to keep the illegals, and deport the racists.
I'm not an Obama fan, and I'm certainly not a Holder fan. However, if Holder's actions result in eliminating most of the bogus seizures that have been going on, I'll be more than happy to give him due credit for it.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Yes, and before it was Obamacare, it was Romneycare. The republicans hate their own plans when the liberals implement it and get any credit.
To be fair, he does have the handle Dimwit.
Sure, except that's not the damn choice! The actual choice is between due process (i.e., outlawing civil forfeiture) and lack of due process (i.e, shitting all over the Fourth Amendment), and that should be an easy choice for anyone who isn't a totalitarian sociopath.
Choosing between fines and prison as a punishment after trial and conviction is a wholly separate issue.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
But on the other hand, Obamacare was just a trick name for a new tax.
So the whole bunch is still scum.
Thanks Obama!
The Government collects taxes on illegal activity, thus the property belongs to whoever bought it. I know that doesn't "feel" right, but if we are going to tax crime, then I guess the proceeds belong to who owns it.
Nobody is disputing that forfeiture should be an option when there is actual evidence of a crime. The problem is when all they find is the $20,000 and without any other evidence -- no secret compartments, no X, and no gun -- they decide the cash is "drug money," take it, and it's up to you to prove otherwise, which is very difficult and you have a very short time and poorly documented process to make the appeal.
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
this time he got it right.
'The unexamined life is not worth living' - Socrates
You can't discriminate against someone on the basis of their nationality, but you also can't legally hire someone without the right to work. And then the argument devolves to what California is or isn't doing in that area, and what they might or might not do in the future. You have been warned.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Even a broken clock is right twice per day. Finally Holder got something right.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
For those across different ponds, John Oliver's takedown of this horrid practice in the United States shows why this was needed. I'm wondering if this piece had something to do with the response.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
"Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
so, what you're saying is that if we find ourselves in such a situation, *get arrested* so that it triggers the protections we should be getting, regardless.
is that correct?
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
In other words: "The shit started by the previous asshole that has been backed by both Congress and the Senate while they publicly bash him for it".
Here are some people that might disagree:
http://gawker.com/unarmed-peop...
You are welcome on my lawn.
One scary quote from TFA:
The Departments of Justice and Homeland Security paid private firms millions to train local and state officers in the techniques of an aggressive brand of policing known as “highway interdiction.” That training, developed by the firms, included methods for ferreting out suspicious drivers and coaxing them into granting warrantless searches of vehicles, according to internal company training documents obtained by The Post. The documents emphasized the importance of targeting cash.
Policemen were being trained to do an end-run around the fourth amendment???
What would be in done in any normal situation.
Find the person responsible for engaging in the illegal activities. Charge the person with those activities. Find the owners of the property. If that property is part of evidence of a crime, then store it unmolested as evidence.
If an owner is convicted and given a fine, sell the property to pay the fine, and give any remainder to the owner. Sentence the owner according to a law. If the owner is not convicted, give the property back to the owner with an apology.
I'm glad you were modded up, because 'civil asset forfeiture' has been a sticking point of mine for quite some time, and you basically said my piece in it.
A number of states limited it using state rules, only to have police departments continue to do it under the federal rules.
The abuses I've read about...
For example: Grandma owns her house. One of her many grandsons, fleeing the police with drugs on him, temporarily escapes into her house until she gets home and promptly turns him over to police. Despite this for some unknown reason the cops decide to seize her house because 'it was used to store drugs'. The only known time there were drugs in there was when the grandson was running! Took the governor telling them to back off.
I don't read AC A human right
Actually your response proves the whole system is broken. The Presidential position is really meant to be nothing more than administering the applicable laws provided by the congress and senate. There should be a whole lot less focus on the President and far more focus on the places where laws are actually considered, written and brought into force. What really needs to happen is the congress and senate should work hard on stripping all powers away from the President beyond administrative roles, no more memo laws, no more made up letters pretending they are laws, a President tied down by the laws written by the congress and the senate. In fact all senior roles within the administration should really go to congressmen and senators as selected by the congress and the senate, those senior administrative roles should be directly answerable to the public. Having a US president with all those powers has proven to be very socially and economically destructive not only upon a US basis but upon a global basis. It seems high time for a change, for a President with far, far fewer powers. The autocrats might thing they are electing 'Leaders' but as far as progressives are concerned they are only ever representatives and the electorate remains the 'Commander in Chief' not only during elections but between them as well. You can not have a government of the people, by the people and for the people unless the people can maintain their voice throughout the electoral cycle and not just one day every four years, that is just plain nucking futs. Do you not realise countries like Australia would toss out a political leader that started to call themselves the 'Commander In Chief', that electorate does not ever accept the idea of surrendering power to someone who is just meant to be representing them. I don't get it, it seems America is no longer electing a President they are electing a King, WTF?
The people's opinions should always be sought when legislative decisions are made, not just a minority of corporate campaign donors and offshore tax haven holiday funders but the people. American seem to have forgotten who the boss is, in a democracy, they are not called representatives, basically employees for no reason, don't let them ever get away with the delusion that your politicians are you bosses, deciding for you, that is just plain wrong.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
I'm in Queensland Australia. We have the VLAD laws
Vicious_Lawless_Association_Disestablishment_Act
A biker used to live around the corner from us.
His home and everything has been taken as proceeds of crime, it is now a construction zone ? fenced off, no entry.
He's probably in gaol.
And that's just for being a biker.
All so the conservative state government can be seen to be hard on crime.
Go well
Politicians will use anything they can find to attack their opponents. It's like their morals & ethics are only makeup they put on when in front of cameras and reporters.
unless it's digital :P
Nonsense, I'm quite shocked that they did this...
But cudos to them, I'll applaud smart choices no matter who does them...
Don't worry, you're free to start dancing like Ballmer and screaming EXECUTIVE ORDERS! EXECUTIVE ORDERS! EXECUTIVE ORDERS!
Remember folks, it's ok to not enforce laws you don't like.
Don't worry, even if you're arrested they'll make sure it's for something entirely distinct from the reason your property is seized, like resisting arrest.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Shrug. Even the worst of dictators generally make the trains run on time. But I agree, decrying something positive from an otherwise odious administration merely makes one look foolish. Intellectual honesty requires giving credit where due. On the surface, this looks like a good thing.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Good point. And reaction to this could be a good indication of what members of the GOP should be de-elected by conservatives.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
You mean the plan that Heritage came up with in the early 90's that they concluded was unworkable? Romneycare and Obamacare are nothing like that (they are worse).
And yet when the Democrats came to power, the motto was "Never let a crisis go to waste".
No. You don't get to pretend he's blameless; he *continued these practices*, which makes him an evil scumbag. The mass violation of our fundamental liberties is not a joke.
The key word there is "Politicians". Not Democrats. Not Republicans. (As they both do this).
Absolutely. Only a myopic citizen believes his enemies in Congress are on one side of the aisle.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Your memory doesn't go back very far, does it? I take it you don't remember any of the AGs that W had when he was in office. The ones that literally defined torture in such a way as to allow them to engage in torture while claiming that we don't torture anybody.
Clearly Holder is worse than them...
Come on, guys! We were doing so well on this!
In addition, under Federal Law, the proceeds of the forfeiture go directly to the agency that seized them, the goods are charged with a crime, and the owner must go to trial against the Federal FSKING Governent to prove the goods innocent in order to get them back.
For extra credit, can anyone spot the perverse incentive here?
"The problems in the world today cannot be solved by the level of thinking which created them" --Albert Einstein
And he IS the younger and more vital one.
It's probably all that vegetarian food.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
There is a school of thought in comparative politics called "American Exceptionalism" -- in this case, meaning that the U.S. Constitution is exceptional in that it only works in the US -- other places that have tried using the American model, with the strong executive; end up devolving into dictatorships. See Dahl, Robert Polyarchy .
Believe it or not, is it actually the 5th Republic French Constitution (the DeGaulle constitution) that has proven the most successful in bringing democracy to democratizing nations.
Reforms like proportional representation, abolishment of the electoral college, and institutions to do away with the two-party system have been long in coming to the American political system to keep it in line with the modern conception of democracy. Instead, it keeps slipping into this vaguely democratic polyarchy.
It seems to me a super simple, effective, and more complete solution would just be to make the police pay court costs plus penalties when they are sued for recovery of seized assets and lose. This would create an incentive for lawyers to take cases on a deferred compensation basis and rectify the current situation where only people who already have significant economic means can afford to fight back against improper and unjust seizure. Human behavior is driven by incentives; setup the correct incentive structure and this problem goes away overnight!
yeah right, obamacare was modeled after something a republican did, which was rational.
in fact republican doomsaying about obamacare is exactly irrational because romneycare proved it could work, although not perfectly.
try again.
If you don't change the law to block this theft then it will keep coming back. What happens if (when) the man who replaces Holder changes the rules back? The burden of proof in civil forfiture should be on the police, just as in criminal law.
I'm so far left I've been called a "old commie hippie" so you are speaking to someone who farther away from the right than Rachel Maddow and ya know what? Sorry but I wanna know what the catch is.
Lets be honest friend, Obama has frankly been worse than even Dubya on many issues, from wiretaps to drone strikes, from his flat out ignoring the petition system HE asked for unless it matches his agenda to throwing whistle blowers in jail, the man has been about as far from an actual liberal as one can get. So when I see something like this? I want to know what the angle is, is there a race angle? this administration likes to throw the race card every chance they get, does it give more power to the fed? Something else they seem to love.
So its not just the right friend, those of us on the left have every reason to be looking for the backstab hidden behind the handshake.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Either destroy the seized-and-legally-forfeited goods or sell them at fair market value, convert the proceeds into $100 bills, and burn them.
This would totally remove the economic incentive for police departments to seize things. Plus, the state would be out its share of the costs of holding a civil forfeiture trial (no, the proceeds from the sale should NOT go towards the cost of paying for the trial, that would re-insert an economic incentive for forfeiture).
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Those cars/boats/dollars siezed might have crossed state lines, therefore the interstate commerce clause applies. And siezing a house affects interstate housing prices, so it counts too. (this is pretty much the reasoning behind federal drug law).
One thing it does do, is to take the wind out of the GOP's sails if they want to themselves pursue a change the asset forfeiture laws. If this has been contentious in the Republican Party (the law-and-order types against stopping it, the small-government times for stopping it) then not only does it deny the small-government side from being able to claim a victory over the incumbent position, but it opens a window to possibly see ugly GOP infighting. In such infighting, the law-and-order types will look bad because the excesses in asset forfeiture will be front and center, and the small-government types will be smeared for agreeing with the President.
This was a masterful move, politically.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Precisely. If they send you on your way without charges, they have the power to grab any money or other valuable asset they see on you before you go. There have been cases where someone walks up to an airline counter and buys a ticket with cash, the ticket agent reports them to the airport police for suspicious possession of cash (not for potential terrorist status, because then you would be arrested), and your cash is seized. The town of Tenaha, TX, was notorious for funding its entire city budget by grabbing cash from motorists who passed by on the highway.
( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... )
That would require them to do real work. They are more than happy to abdicate oversight to executive branch agencies and then bitch about them because it means less work and more sound bites.
That's the "sticking point". I can't do much more than writing my representatives about it, and tossing what money I can to those that promise to change it.
I don't read AC A human right
The GOP maybe, but this has been a hot-button issue for conservatives for a while, and the current sentiment is "wait, who did this wonderful thing, I must have heard you wrong". The difference between conservatives and the GOP is left as an exercise for the reader.
It is true that any 'conservative' with the slightest shred of principle has been vehemently against the practice for years(one can certainly imagine more unconstitutional programs; but it's hard to think of any that we actually carry out on anything like this scale).
That said, given the percentage of a lot of local police budgets currently covered by stealing stuff, it will be interesting to see whether the people who are always drifting toward the theory that freedom can be measured as a direct function of tax rate will be able to keep it together when next year's municipal budgets start being adjusted to account for this.
One of the down sides to being an early adopter. We were one of the first kids on the block to install this shiny new "representative democracy" thing on a large scale, but the bugs really hadn't been worked out yet, and political parasites immediately began to exploit it's weaknesses to insulate themselves from the will of the people. A couple centuries of digging in and they make ticks look positively benevolent. And of course since they're the ones making the rules, good luck dislodging them. Especially with the various black-op "security" branches showing a distinct bias towards interpreting their job as "protecting the status quo"
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
but that accounts for only about 57% of the cash taken.
Ah, so "only" most of it?
BTW, Holder can't just change a law by fiat, so ... WTF? Either it wasn't law in the first place (bad), or he just changed a law by fiat (bad).
Well, you can do more than that and you just did.
Getting the word out at how this is abused will cause the same reaction from many more people who will do the same with writing their representatives and so on. It will not be over night but it will make a difference.
Now we just just need to get the government to stop stealing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
TREASURY, THE CONSERVATORSHIPS AND MORTGAGE REFORM
By Timothy Howard
There are two competing approaches to setting up a secondary mortgage market mechanism to succeed the one in place prior to the 2008 financial crisis: (a) legislative reform that would replace Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with a de novo system, such as the one proposed by Senators Johnson and Crapo, and (b) administrative reform that would make structural and regulatory changes to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but keep them as the centerpieces of conventional secondary mortgage market financing.
The main argument for legislative mortgage reform is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are a “failed business model” that needs to be replaced with a more reliable mechanism. But many proponents of this alternative, in defending it, badly distort the history of the financial crisis. In this paper we briefly discuss three important issues that are widely misunderstood or mischaracterized in the reform debate:
Treasury’s actions to place Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship were fundamentally different from Treasury and Federal Reserve interventions in support of commercial and investment banks during the financial crisis. Intervention in support of banks was done in response to sudden and uncontrollable liquidity crises that required immediate government assistance to keep the companies from failing, and involved actions and tools intended to achieve that result (not always successfully). The act of placing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship was not a response to any imminent threat of failure but rather a policy decision initiated at a time of Treasury’s choosing, and involved actions and tools intended to make and keep the companies insolvent.
Convincing evidence exists that the conservatorships of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were planned well in advance, and that they were intended to remove the companies permanently from private ownership. There also is clear prior history of OFHEO and its successor agency FHFA following the dictates of Treasury in its dealings with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The motive behind the third amendment to the Treasury-FHFA senior preferred stock agreement was made evident by its timing, coming as it did just ten days after Fannie Mae announced sufficient second quarter 2012 earnings not only to pay its $2.9 billion quarterly senior preferred stock dividend but also to add $2.5 billion to its capital. Coupled with strong and growing revenues, rising home prices in the first half of 2012 meant that the pessimistic assumptions that had driven earlier decisions to write down assets, add huge amounts to the loss reserve, and establish a valuation reserve for deferred taxes no longer were supportable. Treasury and FHFA entered into to the third amendment to ensure that when many of these write-downs were reversed it would be the government, and not Fannie Mae’s shareholders, that would benefit.
The Fannie Mae takeover was unlike any other financial institution rescue
All of the individual financial institution rescues (or failures) during the 2008 crisis—including that of AIG—had similar profiles: market perceptions of a sharp decline in the value of a company’s mortgage-related assets led to rapid outflows of consumer deposits or an inability to roll over maturing short-term obligations. Depressed asset prices made it impossible for these highly leveraged companies to replace lost deposits or maturing short-term debt by selling assets without taking losses that would have exhausted their capital. The Federal Reserve and Treasury were faced with the need either to take immediate steps to save them—whether through assisted mergers, massive provisions of liquidity, asset guarantees or other measures—or to allow them to fail.
In their respective books, On the Brink and Stress Test, then-Treasury secretary P
Empirically, you could probably get the supreme court to determine that the Interstate Commerce Clause provided sufficient grounds for a federal ban on the practice, if they liked the idea.
That said, It would be fully appropriate for state lawmakers to have their asses held to the fire about why state and local cops weren't forbidden by state law from touching asset forfeiture with somebody else's ten foot pole years ago. Hopefully that will actually happen.
Not really a masterful move.
It all depends on if holder has the legal authority to alter the program in such ways. If he does, they just ignore it. If he doesn't they create a law that does what happened and take credit for it. If the president vetos the law, they give holder credit for working with them and doing the right thing and bash Obama for going against the will of yhe people that even departments under him already recognize.
Obligatory HHG: "Presidents don't have power, their purpose is to draw attention away from it."
First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win. -Gandhi
That's why I said 'much more', because one can always do more, but I have a lot of irons in the fire.
I've posted on this stuff when the subject varies in the correct direction(other directions will trigger different topics).
I don't read AC A human right
I think this sounds like a great thing, however I do have to question why it took so long for him to do this. How long have Obama and Holder been in office? Now, finally, when we're in Obama's last two lame-duck years, Holder decides to finally do something useful?
So yeah, it's great that he's finally fixed this horrible problem, but he sure could have done it earlier.
Where are your stats that say blacks are 6x more likely to commit violent crimes to begin with?
In fact, blacks are far less likely to be fired upon in proportion to their criminal activity than whites are. Why do I say this? Because of those that fire on police, nearly 2/3 are black. About 1/3 are hispanic. And a measley 3% are white.
But whites make up 44% of those killed by police.
The catch is that it will stop federal forfeiture but not state forfeiture.
http://www.slate.com/articles/...
Jan. 16 2015 7:36 PM
Helicopters Don’t Pay for Themselves
Why Eric Holder’s civil forfeiture decision won’t stop civil forfeiture abuse.
By Leon Neyfakh
Sorry, but it IS illegal and protected by the Constitution under the 4th amendment (emphasis mine below). Do you see that word "seizures"? Look it up, it protects people from civil forfeiture.
Amendment 4
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures , shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
People are not losing their money and/or property after a court decision found them guilty of some crime, people are losing their money and/or property without a trial at all.
That is what people have been complaining about, and for Holder not to stop it completely is yet another failure of the Obama administration.
I agree with your statement about the police not following the law, but that is an easy fix. Start jailing cops that break the law, jail cops that cover for their buddies, and jail judges who dismiss cases simply because the defendant is a cop. Since we have not been doing that, we recently had cops killed by vigilantes.. go figure.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Given that the Republicans have continuously distorted and thwarted the voting process for elderly and brown citizens for years, it is very hard to believe they care about civil liberties.
I'll also point out that no Republicans in the last 10 years have ever even acknowledged, let alone expressed care about what an issue civil forfeiture has become. This is an issue they don't care about and would not resolve.
Nice try, pothead.
Hint: Those people don't care about civil liberties. They saw an opportunity to seize power and did so at a time where many people were foolishly emotional and therefore gullible.
Hint:
Politicians are also people who were foolishly emotional and therefore gullible.
I totally agree. Lets completely eliminate checks and balances in the system. That way we can have a gerrymandered congress decide everything for us and absolutely no way to check that power to ensure it's not abused.
Or we could trust that checks and balances in this country is one of our strongest features of government. You know like the founders believed. But you probably think they are a bunch of fucking morons.
You're so behind the times, Petry. SCOTUS already ruled in Michael J Fox vs Universal Pictures that seizures are interpreted to mean "uncontrollable nervous convulsions". They deemed his seizures to be reasonable (against doctor recommendations) and consequently ruled that he was obligated to continue the Back to the Future franchise....
Unfortunately for us the part of the Republican party that supports civil liberties is for the most part dead outside support for the 2nd. Civil forfeiture is a GOP creation, and it's received it's strongest and most vocal support from that same party since it's creation. There are a few of the tea party stripe that care about civil liberties outside the 2nd, but their number is quite small and they are all tea party (and hated by the non tea-party gop).
The saddest part about this was that prior to Regan, the GOP was the primary party that defended civil rights. The democrats are far too likely to pass hate speech laws and to otherwise curtail rights. When the GOP shifted to the law and order party during the Nixon and Regan years they tacitly decided to abandon civil rights (except for the 2nd, and that's only because the 2nd is well defended by a well financed grass roots group).
Unfortunately, those Republicans don't exist. Well, to be more accurate, they exist, but not in any elected office.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Thank god for John Oliver bringing this to the attention of millions that didn't know about it. He should get an award for it, and I mean that seriously.
Civil forfeiture allowed small time cops to basically rob people at gun point with no trial and no criminal activity involved. It LONG ago turned into a funding source rather than an avenue to shut down crime. Notice that better than half the post article discusses how this will cut funding to police departments and how it's going to hurt policing even though studies have shown the vast majority of civil forfeiture never involves a criminal trial.
Years ago a private towing company in the city where I lived stole my car from my own contract parking spot and held it for ransom. The police outright refused to get involved, and the city towing inspector wouldn't touch it. The court system utterly failed me on it as well as the civil courts insisted it was a criminal matter so they would refuse to pass judgment even when I laid out all the information in front of them. Those assholes had a decades-long reputation for stealing cars at will and raping their owners in the same way and nothing ever changed.
Sure, a lot of money is lost through the civil forfeiture that this story is discussing, but it doesn't impact that many people. Legalized car theft hits a much larger number of individuals.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Do you expect Obama to pass a law? Congress needs to end it, based on this action it's apparent Obama would sign the bill but without congress this is as far as Holder can go. You know checks and balances and all that.
Yup. As has been said elsewhere, anyone honestly think President Romney would have done this?
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
From TFA
"Last Friday, Sens. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) and Mike Lee (R-Utah), along with Reps. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) and John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), signed a letter calling on Holder to end Equitable Sharing."
Where "calling on" means telling him "you can set reasonable rules of your choosing, or we can set them for you".
It's still bad, because it is still not against the law, just against the current administrations policy. So, the next administration can still do whatever they want.
For example, Obama said he wanted the law changed for the NSA instead of him just stopping them directly [because he has the legal power and authority to do so with immediate effect] because the next administration could just start it again.
Course, he also did this for prosecuting illegal aliens [not doing so], which the next administration could start up again.
So, this sort of thing seems to be more of a "these laws we agree with, so we will enforce them, and these other laws we don't, so we won't really enforce them".
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Oh and when did they conclude it was unworkable? When Obama proposed it? You couldn't show a verifiable source that shows dis-ownership of this plan before Obama and the "democrats" proposed it in 2007/2008 if your life depended on it.
The ACA is nearly word for word the Heritage plan. The VERY same plan the Republicans under Gingrich counter proposed to Clinton when Hillary was pushing her healthcare overhaul to congress. And it's the very same plan the GOP and Heritage both endorsed and supported as a "market based reform of the healthcare system" when Romney created Romneycare and right up until Obama was elected when it was suddenly unworkable.
And every time someone like you tries to deny the history there is going to be someone there pointing out that this IS the republican healthcare plan (and also the reason they never proposed a counter to Obamacare). Had Romney proposed it instead of Obama it would be being touted from the hills as the work of the Heritage foundation and a "market based reform" that places "responsibility to pay for healthcare on the people using the system" and endorses "individual responsibility" and all the other buzzword phrases the Heritage foundation used when they created and supported it.
You can still hate Obamacare, even if it was born by Conservatives on the libertarian GOP side funded by the Koch brothers. That doesn't mean you have to like it, unless you are one of those mindless freaks that thinks that just because someone on "your side" created it that you have to like it or you were one of the people that drafted it. But there is no memory hole, you don't get to rewrite history.
Actually, the only thing Eric Holder did was to say that local jurisdictions will no longer turn seized assets over to the federal government and then the federal government will give a portion of the value back to local jurisdictions.
What will now happen is that local jurisdictions will keep the seized assets all to themselves and will be expected to dispose (auction or sell) the assets themselves.
The reasoning: All the states now have their own forfeiture laws so states don't need the feds to help out. What exactly will change? Probably not much, but hey, it sure sounds good 'cause Obama can pretend to be doing something. Not quite as bad as how Obama has done everything in his power to slow down the pace of oil drilling (production has fallen on federal land) and then try to claim responsibility for the increase in US production because he was not able to slow down production on state and private lands.
continue and expand
Here here! There shouldn't be ANY forfeiture to government without a finding of guilt (or debt owed). I consider this a blatant end run around the US property rights and I'm terrified the supreme court not only allowed it but has continually allowed it to expand ever outward.
Now, now. Just because they actually said that doesn't mean they really meant it.
Hey some of them just flash 12.
No, romneycare proved it couldn't work and the guy who mainly wrote it and also mainly wrote obamacare has admitted that the only way romneycare could work was to fleece the feds. So obamacare will work by fleecing the next higher level of government which is...?
Yup, cause all those southern governors that had a "D" behind their name were what party? And the highly revered old dude that had been deeply involved in the KKK had to change his name to Byrd and always had "D" behind his name because he was a member of which party?
IMO any property seized without merit is a crime in and of itself. It shouldn't just stop at banning the practice, but permitting anybody whose property was seized to go back and reclaim it unless the police department or government office in question can get a jury to say that the person who lost their property was guilty of an actual crime DIRECTLY RELATED to it. Make that apply to ANY amount, even if it was only a dollar.
Yeah, I was shocked to see Conyers on the list as well.
And probably a quarter of them were shot by black officers. Kind of like how black officers were involved in the strangulation death in NYC but it was all just a racial thing
Did you read the one about the guy who was shot to death while his hands were cuffed behind his back?
Let me ask you a serious question: How do you feel about ethics in game journalism?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Civil forfeiture shouldn't even exist. All property seizure should be PART of the criminal trial as either proceeds of the crime or restitution or fines for the crime.
Under absolutely no circumstance should the government be able to go into a civil court and take your money outside a debt owed. These forfeitures are supposed to be criminal forfeiture and they should be handled in the criminal side where the defendant has rights and assumption of innocence. I'm horrified you would suggest that the government should be able to prevail in anything on the standard of most believable instead of without a reasonable doubt.
and obamacare. A failure to purchase insurance might lead to you not showing up to work which might cause your company to produce and sell less across state lines. We have basically stretched "regulating interstate commerce" to the point that the feds can require anyone to purchase anything on the grounds that not doing so could possibly negatively affect interstate commerce. And Obama is working feverishly to protect our rights.
You make it sound like the French were late to the party.
Sure did, which is why it's going to be funny to watch them try to criticize Obama for implementing it. Remember, this is the Republicans we're talking about here.
I would argue that the conservatives in this nation are NOT the Republicans. I consider myself to be a conservative, but I rarely agree with either Republicans or Democrats. Both are in favor of more laws which do northing but enslave us to regulation and our corporate masters while enriching themselves and their friends. Libertarians are closer to my preferred form of government, even though they're all a bunch of crazies who have no clue how the real world works.
On this issue, specifically, I see absolutely NO way that civil forfeture is anything less than state-sponsored armed robbery. Take for instance the case of Marina Dheri, a former stripper found with over $1,000,000 in cash in her car during a traffic stop in Nebraska. Without cause for suspicion of any actual crime, the local police siezed her cash and told her to have a good day. While it is probably unusual for strippers to have that much cash on them, this lady had a very good reason. She was traveling cross country with her money to invest in a night club. Without warning and without cause, the police legally stole her cash and used it for themselves while leaving her and her fellow investors high and dry with bills to pay.
A few years later, she was able to get that money back with interest, but not before the other investers moved on without her.
They had zero cause to suspect that she was doing anything illegal other than the fact that she had a large sum of money in her car. They had nothing going for them but a law allowing them to sieze that money and use it to buy shiny new toys for their department.
This isn't a D/R issue. This is a good/evil issue and this law is pure evil!
Except for Rand Paul.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Looking from Australia we admire the focus of the US constitution on civil rights etc. None of that is in the Australian constitution, and the UK does not even have one.
Yet the US has these crazy laws. Civil forfeiture, way out of control plea bargaining, no legal representation for the poor, and, until relatively recently, slavery. I do not think that any other country in the western world has abuses to anything like that level.
Does the US constitution actually remove people's rights? Or would the situation be even worse without it?
Republicans are in favor of Civil Asset forfeiture laws. It fits in well with their tough anti-crime stance. So it's not much of stretch to see them opposing this. Even Rand Paul pretty quickly dropped his bill banning civil asset forfeiture (or at least quietly let it die, which is the same thing). This is the first real step taken towards ending the practice since it began.
The real question is: after 40 years of non-stop tax cuts (especially for top earners) how are we going to fill the gaping hole in local law enforcement budgets this'll leave?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
This is quite possibly the only good thing Eric Holder has ever done. It only begins to make up for the Mark Rich fiasco. How about that?
The US Constitution was written by a bunch of wealthy land owners. Our representative gov't was specifically designed to ensure they'd keep that land and that the rabble wouldn't get too uppity. They weren't shy about it either. You can read plenty of documents from the time where they talk about it.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Civil forfeiture is as old as the Republic. In the beginning the only tax was tarrifs, and the primary way that smugglers were made to pay up was civil forfeiture. Unfortunately this idea was extended during the war on drugs leading to the abuses we have had recently.
The original reason was workable.
Where in there does it say anything about prohibiting seizures without a trial. All I see is the word "unreasonable", which among other things implies context dependence--i.e. the opposite of a hard+fast rule.
Civil forfeiture is grossly abused, no doubt. But how can you quote something as proof of an assertion when it says no such thing?
So your facts are not quite accurate. Civil forfeiture isn't a GOP creation, it has been used since colonial times by the British and was quickly enacted after the Revolution to enforce import tariffs. It has seen waves of popularity, for instance congress allowed it as a significant part of enforcing the Volstead act (Prohibition). While the 68th congress was nominally Republican, it was a back before the late 20th century realignment of the parties that you allude to in your closing sentence. If you look at the equitable agreement passed in 1984 that promotes this current egregious behavior, you will see that it was passed by a Democratically controlled house.
Your analysis on the re-alignment is likewise flawed. It wasn't that the GOP tacitly decided to abandon civil rights (It didn't), but that the Democrats under Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act (With Johnson realizing the violence he was doing to his party and the fact that he was handing the Presidency to Nixon) and a large proportion of Democrats switched teams (a majority in the South). This forced a new base upon the Republican party, even though they would still run a liberal in the '68 election (Possibly our Nation's last liberal President).
The tricky part is that technically it's not a seizure. They actually charge the property with a crime.
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Article_Consisting_of_50,000_Cardboard_Boxes_More_or_Less,_Each_Containing_One_Pair_of_Clacker_Balls
The French got to start over a few times after failed experiments.
This space intentionally left blank
If you read the article, it explains that many states' laws are more strict than the federal law ... but they were preempted by the federal law in that the police department could decide to opt into the Equitable Sharing program and then not be bound by those restrictions. It's not the end of this horrible practice, but it's a good start.
vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
How do you figure that representative democracy is new? We put a new coat of paint on the Roman senate and called it American.
yhe
You should leave out the 'h' if you're going to use 'y' for thorn. :)
Umm, you're describing a parliamentary democracy, which the US is not. And the reason the President calls himself the Commander in Chief at times is because the Constitution, Article II Section 2, states explicitly that The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States... If he calls himself the Commander in Chief in a speech or something, it's less likely to be crowing -- because, duh, of course you are -- than an attempt to indicate understanding of the serious responsibility of his position.
Perhaps you're not from the US. If that is the case, well, we do have our problems, and both recent and not-so-recent Presidents exercising power they might not legitimately possess is one. Probably the single most egregious example is not recent at all: Andrew Jackson infamously defied the Supreme Court with regard to Native American relocation. Google "Trail of Tears" if you haven't heard of it.
However, you might want to work to understand our system a little bit better before criticizing it, because the President is definitely supposed to be a very powerful individual and not at all supposed to be Congress's lapdog. Our system partly depends on a balancing act we call "checks and balances" where the President and Congress (and the Supreme Court) are all supposed to be able to stop each other from doing anything too out-of-hand. The reason we all learn about the "Trail of Tears" in our history classes -- in addition to the humanitarian disaster it was -- is because the system failed quite spectacularly in that instance. But, more often than not, it actually works pretty well. And it avoids the Prime Minister getting replaced every 6 months when the unstable parliamentary coalition that appointed him unravels. Every system has its faults.
vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
This is why people need to start their own white-op security branches showing bias towards hunting down officials that the constitution needs protected from.
And soon it'll turn into "it was really our doing, those dastardly wabbits just took the credit! Go our team!"
Or, alternatively: "They let druggies keep their drug money! Why do you hate our boys in blue so much?"
Cognitive dissonance is like a Higgs field of psychology: it's bound to collapse into some unpredictable nonzero value, and once it does, all of reality is caught and twisted into a completely new shape.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
The laws were created because the 'war on drugs' worked so well that only the smarter, richer criminals were left. The police couldn't catch them with due process so the police robbed them instead.
You know, you could simply cut the costs - tell the police to focus on thieves and murderers and leave pot smokers and prostitutes alone. Maybe stop sending SWAT teams to storm people's houses over anonymous phone calls, cease harassing black people for walking on the streets, take it easy with surplus military gear...
If anything, forcing people to actually pay for police activity might cause some much-needed reconsideration of what, exactly speaking, is necessary police activity and what is someone play-acting action movies on other people's expense.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
There is a school of thought in comparative politics called "American Exceptionalism" -- in this case, meaning that the U.S. Constitution is exceptional in that it only works in the US -- other places that have tried using the American model, with the strong executive; end up devolving into dictatorships.
I have my own school of thought, namely, that most places claimed to implement a US style system don't. And it's worth noting that the executive branch wasn't that strong for more than half the history of the US. Given the problems the US currently has with executive branch over-reach, perhaps a strong executive branch doesn't work in the US either!
Believe it or not, is it actually the 5th Republic French Constitution (the DeGaulle constitution) that has proven the most successful in bringing democracy to democratizing nations.
I don't. But that's because France is well on its way to a 6th Republic.
Lets completely eliminate checks and balances in the system.
The whole reason for the grandparent's proposition exists because executive branch already has too much power. The checks and balances are not checking and balancing enough. I think he's overshooting, but the legislative branch needs to be exerting more control over what's going on.
this my friends is a partisan hack.
We were/are a republic for the rich and powerful, a government of insiders and buerocrats. "Representative Democracy" is little more than propaganda from mid 20th century. When we where founded, we were little more "representative" than England who's had "representative democracy" in some form since the magna carta, and especially since the era of the long parllament.
The government works damn close to how the so called "founding fathers", a term which is late 19th century propaganda, wanted it. The government exists to protect the wealthy and powerful. What reforms that did happen, happened slowly, over the course of 150 years, and where done at gunpoint, only after major unrest.
It took Shay's rebellion before they dropped the property ownership requirement on voting, it took the civil war to end slavery, it took ~50 years of riots, civil unrest, flat out military conflicts against the poor and working class before the 17th amendment passed giving dirrect vote on the Senate that only happened as late as the 20th century.
No sir, we don't have a democracy, never had a democracy.
Nice job poisoning the well.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
Wow. When Holder finally decided to do something right he really did the right thing in a big way. This is amazing wonderful news. I hope his 'constitutional scholar' president follows through and explains to SCOTUS why such seizures needed to stop because they're unconstitutional.
This doesn't entirely make up for Holder's racism or failure to enthusiastically investigate crimes by the IRS (in its harassing political opponents), but it is still a, to quote Biden, "big fuckin deal". Good job on this one Holder.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
Fifth amendment guarantees that no one will be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Sixth amendment guarantees a jury trial. Now if life liberty and property can be deprived willy nilly so long as some minor paperwork is done and we call it "due process", then what is the point of the sixth amendment? It is clear that due process means a trial.
I.e., property and liberty are both protected by the same amendment and given the same level of protection in that amendment. If your property can be taken simply because someone used it in a crime, then your body can be locked up as well. You may have been taken hostage by a bank robber, they can put you in prison for the rest of your life without trial for that.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
Does Obamacare require:
Only minimal catastrophic coverage?
Minimal regulations on insurures?
Tax changes to eliminate employer-sponsored insurance?
Replacing medicare w/ vouchers?
These are all parts of the Heritage plan.
Saying that the Heritage plan is the same as Obamacare is like saying that the Ryan voucher plan is the same as the NHS as they are both health care plans.
some Republicans called for this to happen
FTFY
Your body can be locked up as well. That was the whole "Bush suspends habeas corpus" bit a few years back. Interpreting the law takes more than just a copy of the constitution and a big enough ego to think that your reading of it must be the only way it can be read.
That's a good point, all of that business would work to eliminate the cost saving that the Affordable Care Act provides. Vouchers? Just a way to fleece the elderly and ultimately drive them into emergency care - increasing costs in the long run.
So that's one way to look at it: they took the Heritage plan and changed it enough to make it viable.
"he left in some exceptions for things like explosives, weapons, and items related to child pornography, which all together amount to about 1% of the current federal program. "
Prepare to see that 1% jump to 50% or higher real soon if that's the only way the cops can keep making bank..
All of a sudden guns and child porn will be found everywhere cops look.
... Especially with the various black-op "security" branches showing a distinct bias towards interpreting their job as "protecting the status quo"
That is their job, in so far as they protect a government with a current, popular mandate.
These changes are superficial and still permit this atrocious practice to be used and is one of the Raison d'être of currencies like bitcoin where the currency can be secured in such a manner that it is nearly impossible to seize with brain wallets, mutisig, and nTimelocks.
Unfortunately it's also totally propaganda and racist, not telling the whole story, such as ignoring eye witnesses and forensic evidence showing the officer was attacked or was legitimately fearful for their lives.
Did you read the one about the guy who was shot to death while his hands were cuffed behind his back?
Let me ask you a serious question: How do you feel about ethics in game journalism?
Sir, you win the internets today.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Very well written rtb61,my compliments.
other places that have tried using the American model, with the strong executive; end up devolving into dictatorships. See Dahl, Robert Polyarchy .
Whereas we simply devolved into an oligarchic republic. Wait, we didn't devolve, that's what the constitution was designed to create.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I love that you think this is some kind of negative. I think instead of democrats, you meant all humans including yourself. Therefore you are a hypocrite and a liar. Kindly eat shit and die
What a bizarrely worded statement. If Holder's actions reduce seizures by 43% (the maximum likely given state accounts for 57%) you won't be happy to give him due credit for it?
It's those god damned Fagmasons.
Rand paul most certainly has mentioned the problem
Of course.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
They'll simply issue more speeding tickets. I consider issuing tickets a form of armed robbery. So while the police (in this instance) are immune from prosecution, what they are doing is still criminal.
Not good enough. "Items related to child pornography" will be the new joker. Have a dressup doll in your car? If manga possession can be termed "child pornography", the doll certainly counts. Buying suspiciously large amounts of diapers? Are you planning to change the diapers more often than medically indicated? Is there a child in the car? How is it going to get into its pyjamas? Have you bought baby powder? Can you prove that you are in legal possession of a baby? It's just like buying gun powder without a gun license is inherently suspicious.
Remember: you don't need a conviction. You just need a hunch. And a hunch for "items related to child pornography": a phone with a digital camera is suspect. What do you need a camera for? Let's go through your photographs. No pictures of children? Have you tampered with the evidence? What are you afraid of?
Just note that seizure laws are as old as the constitution and the Supreme Court has never interpreted the 4th amendment that way. Example cases are "The Palmyra, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat) 1 (1827)." where they seized a pirate ship originally owned by Spain but was operating on its own. Or "Dobbins's Distillery v. United States, 96 U.S. 395, 24 L.Ed. 637 (1878)" where they ceased property of the man who'd leased out his property for a distillery. In "254 U.S. 505, 41 S.Ct. 189, 65 L.Ed. 376 (1921)" a taxicab used to transport illegal liquor was seized. In "Calero Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663 (1974)" they cease a yacht because the people leasing it had one marijuana cigarette. There's 200 years of precedent saying they can cease property even though the owner is innocent.
What seems to be fundamentally different is that most the recent cases seem to involve seizures where there's no real evidence of a primary crime in which the property was an "accessory". "Preponderance of evidence" has basically been replaced by speculation and accusation with no basis in fact. A conviction has never been a formal requirement, say they try to stop a car at a border crossing, the driver makes a getaway, abandons the car and is never found or convicted. In this case they would seize the car as objectively used for drug smuggling even though no person could be convicted for the crime. But when there's not the slightest hint of link to a crime, that's just wrong.
It also gets better, there's no need for the seized property to be instrumental in the crime.
The dissent argues that our cases treat contraband differently from instrumentalities used to convey contraband, like cars: Objects in the former class are forfeitable "however blameless or unknowing their owners may be," post, at 2, but with respect to an instrumentality in the latter class, an owner's innocence is no defense only to the "principal use being made of that property," id., at 4. However, this Court's precedent has never made the due process inquiry depend on whether the use for which the instrumentality was forfeited was the principal use. If it had, perhaps cases like Calero Toledo, in which Justice Douglas noted in dissent that there was no showing that the "yacht had been notoriously used in smuggling drugs . . . and so far as we know only one marihuana cigarette was found on the yacht,"
Basically if you got a friend riding your car and you get stopped for any reason and they find a joint on your friend your car can be ceased under drug laws, there's no requirement that it be instrumental in transporting drugs. Same if you got a friend or family member visiting, your house is now a de facto drug stash even though it was on their person the whole time.
In any event, for the reasons pointed out in Calero Toledo and Van Oster, forfeiture also serves a deterrent purpose distinct from any punitive purpose. Forfeiture of property prevents illegal uses "both by preventing further illicit use of the [property] and by imposing an economic penalty, thereby rendering illegal behavior unprofitable." Calero Toledo, supra, at 687. (...) "The law thus builds a secondary defense against a forbidden use and precludes evasions by dispensing with the necessity of judicial inquiry as to collusion between the wrongdoer and the alleged innocent owner."
Basically it's the "nuke it from orbit" theory, anything found in the vicinity of a crime gets caught in the blast wave. It doesn't matter if it was your property and you're innocent, if bank robbers steal your car and use it in a bank robbery clearly you should lose your car right? Your fault for letting it get stolen and be used to rob a bank, you pay the price.
The dissent also suggests that The Palmyra line of cases "would justify the confiscation of an ocean liner just because one of its passengers sinned while on board." Post, at 5. None of our cases have held that an ocean liner may be confiscated because of the activities of one passenger. We said in Goldsmith Grant, and we repeat here, that "[w]hen such application shall be made it will be time enough to pronounce upon it."
Is it time yet?
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Practical, pragmatic politics is about factions and coalitions and deal making, and offering people who, yes, hate you something they want in exchange for them backing you on something important to you.
For example, Lyndon Johnson as a white person from a poor background was for Civil Rights as a deep, heartfelt, personal value that he was willing to fight for, and fight for it he did in his unique style of political coalition building and persuasion. His party was deeply split between North and South whereas the Republicans were for Civil Rights because Lincoln, but many could just as well break out the popcorn to watch the Democrats fight each other.
So President Johnson threw money around. You voted for Civil Rights, and your state got a bridge or a road. Republicans were going to vote for Civil Rights anyway because Lincoln, but why not get a bridge or a road for something you knew in your heart was right instead of sitting back to watch the Democrats fight?
President Obama campaigned on some vague kind of New Politics where he was not going to revert to Washington-as-usual deal making. In retrospect, President Johnson's style of politics was corrupt, even if it got us the Voting Rights Act?
I guess President Obama's New Politics turned out to be scolding people -- a lot. The Republicans scold right back, Putin comes right out and instructs him to put it someplace, and the leaders of China let it go in one ear and out the other. And I guess the people who support Mr. Obama are into scolding Republicans -- before the Republicans are given half a chance to agree with him.
Yes, there are some people on Right-wing Web sites finding a cloud enclosing this silver lining. They are saying that A.G. Holder is doing this to lock the heels down of local police over Ferguson and Staten Island.
Maybe Mr. Holder is "going after" local police, and maybe this is long overdue, and maybe it took tragedy in the minority community to make this happen. A lot of the Libertarians in the Libertarian-Conservative-Republican-Right coalition have been talking about the police being out-of-control -- in the war-on-drugs, the seizure thing. A lot of people on the Right have been torn about Ferguson. Maybe in their hearts are not in the correct place with black people, but Randy Balko at Reason has long championed the case of black persons getting on the wrong side of heavy-handed police tactics.
But the protest response to Ferguson was scold-scold-scold-scold. You are Conservative, you are white, and you are racist for thinking that a black man should not reach for a police officer's gun when that officer had gotten all fascist on him.
People on the Right have been saying for years that Mr. Obama ought to "triangulate", offer them something they could agree on. This order by A.G. Holder is the first major instance I can think of the President triangulating with the Right, maybe splitting off the Libertarian Right from the Law-and-Order Right.
Yeah, moderate me Troll, I've got Karma to spare, but the folks coming out swinging against people who want to agree with them on something have a lot to learn about politics. You do one thing that your political oppositions favors and you "deserve accolades"? There is a lot in politics and life to be learned.
Trouble is, after those cops were killed, the other cops blamed the deaths on those that would hold cops accountable (DeBlasio).
So, the cops have shown that any DA that would dare to press charges against a cop should expect to not be fed any more evidence.
True enough, and in this case he probably will have earned it.
On the face of it, it sounds like a good move. If applied evenly, and without ulterior motives, I am unabashedly for this one and will give credit where it is due. The administration isn't calling for a change in the law here (and neither are any Republicans) which might indicate they wanted a restoration of our rights. That means they simply want to use this law to further their agenda. I suspect the status quo would be better than what they plan.
The current administration is choosing not to enforce some existing laws, notably immigration, and wants to preclude other entities from enforcing those same laws - I don't believe any reasonable person would dispute that statement. There is little they can do currently about Joe Arapaio enforcing Federal Laws, except choose not to prosecute the cases.
I expect at least two abuses to be in the works:
It will be used as a tool to increase Federal presence/control/"cooperation" in local law enforcement through funding controls/incentives/inducements. We all know how well that has worked out in Education. It will mean more shared data about us being available to the Federal Government.
Currently the Federal Government cannot directly compel states to enforce federal regulations because of the10th Amendment. This will be used as an end run around that, since the Commerce Clause has never worked very well in compelling the states in law enforcement (drinking age being a notable exception). Laws such as the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act which had enforcement provisions that were ruled unconstitutional will get their enforcement at the state level because of this type of financial leveraging. It will be used selectively to punish those localities that are not compliant with the wishes of the Federal Government in some regard, and reward those that are aligned with the administration's agendas. Expect Chicago, DC and NYC to be rewarded for their gun controls and Maricopa County, AZ to be punished for its enforcement of immigration laws. Expect the reverse under the next Republican President.
This is a bad law that we need to have repealed, and not made worse by politically selective application.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
Did you miss the part where I said "and that goes for all of them, not just republicans."?
Wrong. Politicians are mostly sociopaths and psychopaths. They are the ones who pass these evil laws. What people don't seem to realize is that emotions are no reason to pass freedom-violating laws. It's not when everything is fine and dandy that our commitment to freedom is tested; it's when bad things happen that our commitment to freedom is tested. And those worthless scumbag politicians took advantage of a disaster to increase their control over the populace.
I mean if the president doesn't have to enforce any of those silly laws that congress passes (if congress wants to write the laws, then let them enforce it), why should the states have to follow the stupid orders and laws that the president passes. Fuck there are so many fucking laws on the books that it is statistically impossible that there is one person in the land of the free who is in fact not a criminal. Often the laws contradict themselves, or the interpretation of these fucking laws change. We have always had selective enforcement of the laws. Who is Holder to say now you can't follow the fucking laws that the fucking federal government passed. I don't agree with the cops and their ability to rob the citizens if they feel so inclined, but I really don't agree with the system. The whole legal system is a farce. Best to tear it up. Fuck while we are at it let's just tear dissolve the United States. We can sell it piece meal to the holding companies, and interested foreign parties overseas.
I have a new pledge of allegiance;
I pledge allegiance to the economic cooperatives of the Americas,
and to the oligarchs to whom they serve, one economic entitiy under mammon,
with free healthcare, welfare, and prisons for all.
I say fuck it. The United States is over. Our elected tyrants have no interest in the USian citizens. They all have hoes, and houses in Dubai, and campaign contributors from Russia, mexico, and China.
The only thing that can save us is a firm belief in God, family values, and easy access to guns. That is why I support Muslim Extremists.. Statistically speaking you are much much more likely to be killed by an illegal immigrant than an Islamic freedom fighter.
So hypothetically speaking, if 33.33% of seizures were done according to federal law, 33.33% were done according to state law, and 33.33% were done according to county law (remember, hypothetical, so we don't need to concern ourselves with how that came to be), and one person on each of the three levels managed to reduce their contribution to 0%, you would give credit to no one? Since no single person resulted in a greater than 50% reduction? Regardless of the fact that the most that any single person could do is 33.33%?
I mean seriously- buying margarita machines with the money?
I suspect John Oliver's piece helped push this.
Kudo's to John Oliver!
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
The part where the rabble (supposedly) get representation is new. Roman citizenship was multi-tiered, and only the upper class (native-born landowners? something like that) got a vote.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
No, it's really not. Not when it involves actively undermining legal social movements trying to change things in accordance with the law.
And when is the last time the government had a popular mandate? It's rare that even half the population votes, and elections are usually so close that even the winners are supported by less than 1/4 of the population, most of whom are voting against "the other team" rather than in favor of "their" candidate. Congressional approval ratings have been lower than even major ISPs for how long now?
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
As a card-carrying Republican, I consider being forced to pay taxes legalized theft so it's a small step in the right direction... but i'm not holding my breath.
What did we get out of the last big housing crisis? There's a ever loving economic crash every 10 years like clockwork. The Republicans pull back the regulations, the economy crashes when rampant speculation runs out of control, the gov't bails out the rich and well connected and the Democrats get voted in to clean up the mess. It's been like this since the 70s, probably since before that.
/. these days...
Christ, the things that get modded up on
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Unfortunately for us the part of the Republican party that supports civil liberties is for the most part dead outside support for the 2nd. Civil forfeiture is a GOP creation, and it's received it's strongest and most vocal support from that same party since it's creation. There are a few of the tea party stripe that care about civil liberties outside the 2nd, but their number is quite small and they are all tea party (and hated by the non tea-party gop).
The saddest part about this was that prior to Regan, the GOP was the primary party that defended civil rights. The democrats are far too likely to pass hate speech laws and to otherwise curtail rights. When the GOP shifted to the law and order party during the Nixon and Regan years they tacitly decided to abandon civil rights (except for the 2nd, and that's only because the 2nd is well defended by a well financed grass roots group).
I call bullshit, republicans have typically been racists. to claim anything to the contrary is idiotic.
Sure, U.S. democracy became more democratic over the time, starting with the expansion of the franchise to non-land owning males under Andrew Jackson. However, to say it was never a "democracy" is really a semantic question where you redefine democracy to be "direct democracy;" or have to include institutions which are uncommonly present in the world's democracies.
This redefinition of democracy really falls apart when you look at literature using democracy in a scientific sense, e.g. Democratic Peace Theory, "the closest thing we have to a law in political science."
Can you support your claims about the French "6th Republic" with any sources citing movements for creating a new constitution or dissolving the French state in favor of a new republic? Really, the DeGaulle Constitution is a staple of comparative politics and is the foundation of much of what Samuel Huntington terms the "Third Wave of Democratization."
Seriously.
Well, this GOP guy is 100% behind Mr. Holder for once. Only a completely partisan fool would not see how civil forfeiture is being abused.
We should all probably thank John Oliver for the exposure his show gave this abuse of power.
They could have done this any time in the last six years. It's a PR stunt. Unusually, it's one that's actually a good move, but still a PR stunt.
Same here. He got one right. But even a broken clock is right twice a day :)
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
... since the Commerce Clause has never worked very well in compelling the states in law enforcement (drinking age being a notable exception)....
They don't enforce the drinking age via the commerce clause. They have acknowledged that they don't the authority to set the drinking age. The federal government will just withhold highway funds from any state that lowers it below 21.
I had an old mechanical flip type digital clock "back in the day", when digital clocks first came out. That only did 12:00 to 12:00, no military time. I'm gonna get off my lawn now.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
We should also petition congress to get it in writing so that the rules don't get changed at the drop of a hat.
The subject as to whether the U.S. is a democracy has also been beaten to death in every university in the nation, however, it tends to be more of a bar conversation than a serious conversation in political theory.
Thats more proof we are not a democracy. We have more serious political discussions drunk, then we do in electing leaders.
However, to say it was never a "democracy" is really a semantic question where you redefine democracy to be "direct democracy;" or have to include institutions which are uncommonly present in the world's democracies.
not "direct" democracy, I am talking we were not even a representative democracy, when we founded, and the smoking gun of course is the federalist papers which outline a very anti-democratic sentiment in the founders intent. You can't walk away from this by deconstructing the word "democracy". Its quite obvious they did everything in their power to shield government officials from the population as much as possible without implementing a king or aristocracy.
We we are a republic ruled by high minded elites, and despite many reforms, still are. We have the exact government our founders wanted, if only slightly less repressive.
What I want, is actual representative democracy, and actual freedom.
If you don't change the law to block this theft then it will keep coming back. What happens if (when) the man who replaces Holder changes the rules back?
The highest law in the land already blocks this kind of thing. The twin rights to ethical government and ethical practice of law are certainly among the rights "retained by the people" (9th Amendment) and "reserved to the people" (10th Amendment), as as examples of universal and inalienable human rights. Even the appearance of conflict of interest must be avoided when possible.
As such, it has NEVER been legal to fund police operations (or other government activity) with seized property, or fines. There is simply no way this can be done without the conflict of interest, and the highest law in the land says that isn't allowed. There's nothing "legalized" about this form of theft.
The problem is getting government and the legal profession to acknowledge this. Both groups have a strong vested interest in pretending that these amendments don't exist. It's almost an unholy alliance (and one that crosses party boundaries). In part, this happens because many politicians are lawyers. There is also the problem that associations of lawyers lobby for the interests of the profession (or groups within it, such as the tort lawyers): these groups have enormous financial resources and appear to have considerable influence over politicians and judges.
Ethics problems -- present in US law from the beginning -- are now pervasive in US legal practice in many areas of law, and the people involved simply don't want to change.
As a result, the lawyers choose to ignore a lot of illegal stuff the government does, particularly things that are illegal as a result of rights arising under the 9th/10th Amendments, because they don't want any precedents set that might come back to haunt them. It's not a conspiracy, but rather a case of amoral and unprincipled individuals recognizing shared interests. Civil forfeiture is actually only one of the more minor problems here.
It doesn't appear that there are any candidates one can vote for who will do anything about the ethics problems in law and government. In all likelihood, both major parties are too corrupt at this point to select anybody as a candidate that would be willing to address this. As a result, there's nobody to vote for! That makes it very hard to fix the ethics problems within the system (though there are still some tactics that might work, we can't entirely rule out working "within" the system).
Can you support your claims about the French "6th Republic" with any sources citing movements for creating a new constitution or dissolving the French state in favor of a new republic?
Sure, the fact that they're on version 5 already. The longest lived of their republics was 70 years and they're already on 54 years with the current one. I think the structural issues with French society will eventually put it over like high unemployment, overly strong public labor unions, and the usual divide between Left and Right. There's also the matter of the growing power of the EU which might in itself force adoption of a more favorable constitution, say as part of the absorption of France into the EU. Plus, this constitution has issues, like the judicial part of the government being under the thumb of the executive part, and the inclusion of some pretty vapid environmentalism stuff.
For me, I get the feeling that the current French constitution was designed so that Charles de Gaulle could have an easy time of it. And that's why it's popular for a lot of new democracies. Because people are more concerned about getting stuff done right now (with them naturally in the driver's seat, of course) than about having a democracy that is viable over the long term.
If you exercised your choice to leave society, you would have a point.
You just want the benefits of civil society, while draining the system.
Parasites.
You should dust off your hands occasionally.
What is it with your wanting to pin Obamacare onto Heritage any way you can? Is it because you think it then insulates criticism of it from conservatives?
You don't realize how much you are trying to stretch this do you.
If Think Progress came out with a study saying that gun control needs to be removed and conceal carry be allowed everywhere, and then they decided to say that that study is unworkable; would Dems be beholden to it for 20 years? Because thats what you are doing with Heritage and health care.
Where is the "wonderful" thing? It's putting a lipstick on the pig. That practice is unspeakable abuse of power that became prevalent with the failed War on Drugs. Shame on both parties and all administrations that tolerate this.
You'll note in Oliver's piece that the sheriff in the courtroom referred to civil forfeiture as 'pennies from heaven.' His heaven was America's hell.
"Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
Politicians are mostly sociopaths and psychopaths.
He already said "people". It's only a particular affectation of modern times that humanity doesn't strongly manifest these negative traits.
The reason civil asset forfeiture even exists is because some people felt that it was wrong to let someone keep the profit they made from doing illegal things. I would tend to agree, however, most crime really isn't anywhere close to as profitable as people like to think. They're literally arguing that it's alright to seize houses/cars/'major purposes' and most likely ruin their financial lives forever because someone had a pill on them or a bag of weed. There's no 'minimum criminal income' that must be met or any extraordinary circumstances that must be met in order for them to just lay claim over your house.
This is where the abuse comes in. When they talk about it on TV, you'd think they were seizing the estates of Columbian drug lords....in reality they're literally saying shit like 'the pill had an indentation in it from the manufacturer who sometimes suggests that only half a pill should be taken....clearly the person who was in illegal possession of this pill had intended to split the pill and sell it...it is clear this person would most likely have profited, and so we need to seize their house, car, Playstation 3, iPhone, iPod, iMac, and their plasma TV.'
Think of this: You never see shitty cars with the 'paid for by drug money' bumper stickers even though though it is pretty rare for a nice car to be seized...nobody has fantasy justice jerkoffs featuring a seized (and in terrible shape, factory) Honda Civic.
If you had read the actual article you'd know that several congressmen on both sides of the aisle are working to end the practice. I find it hard not to be cynical about many things that go on in the government but it's important to realize that sometimes the government (or, more specifically, people in the government who have the power to enact change) does things right, sometimes they change things for the better. This is one of those cases.
Does more need to be done? Absolutely. But Holder did what he could and now people like Grassly and Leahy are doing what they can to abolish this horrible practice. Personally, I'd like a Constitutional amendment that protects civilian property from arbitrary asset forfeiture by law enforcement, but that's not just going to pop up out of nowhere. Positive steps in the right direction make me optimistic.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
Are you in the wrong thread? We were talking about abuse of police powers.
You are welcome on my lawn.
(BTW, the democrats are very predictable in opposing anything republicans do, no matter how rational it is).
Very true. It's just vanishingly difficult to find an action Republicans have pursued that could ever be argued as rational.
It's the Democrats that come up with that "war on" bullshit. War on women, hispanics, blacks, etc. War on women, really? Yet some women bought it. Granted, only the stupid ones. Bad as saying Obama has a war on men since he's not handing out free condoms. Just as absurd.
OTOH, I have a feeling some big Obama supporters are about to be busted and normally they'd lose everything. With this, they keep on going like the energizer bunny.
I bet you didn't know the Jim Crowe laws were all democratic. Look up Governor Wallace, check into it. They have a very, very racist past. All the way up to today.
I agree, but hostage situations have to be taken serious every time no exceptions.
IMO any property seized without merit is a crime in and of itself. It shouldn't just stop at banning the practice, but permitting anybody whose property was seized to go back and reclaim it unless the police department or government office in question can get a jury to say that the person who lost their property was guilty of an actual crime DIRECTLY RELATED to it.
Indeed. Our constitution says that property can't be taken 'without due process'. This should mean a criminal trial. Not 'Well, we think drugs were sold in this house so we're confiscating it', or 'Your hotel doesn't do enough to discourage drug dealing and use within it because you only called 15 out of 20 times we've caught use inside of it, so we're confiscating it'. Etc...
I really hope that if they ever think to do something like this they'll consider my personality and reconsider - because I WILL make it cost them money. I will go to court to get back the money even if lawyer's fees will cost more(I'll add it to the lawsuit). I'll take them to small claims court. Etc...
I don't read AC A human right
As someone else mentioned, the US constitution is a body that must be interpreted in whole. There is overlap between the amendments, very intentionally. "Unreasonable" can be interpreted by reading the other amendments to the US Constitution. Further meaning can be gained by reading the history surrounding the Constitution including the Federalist Papers.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Obama and Holder are freedom hating traitors.
It is hilarious that you try to play yourself off as a left winger, when literally every post you've made sounds like a porno post from a Randroid. Now I don't just consider you silly, I suspect you are a paid shill for the republican party. That seems to be the job of choice for most poor people.
Civil forfeiture shouldn't even exist. All property seizure should be PART of the criminal trial as either proceeds of the crime or restitution or fines for the crime.
This is why I'm glad to live in "evil socialist" (heavy sarcasm implied, for the sarcastically impaired) Australia.
The police cannot seize something you have without cause, I.E. its illegal or used in an illegal fashion, so for most things, this requires a warrant. After it is seized the property remains yours until you go to court (or is automatically released if no charges are issued). At court, if found innocent the property is released, if you're found guilty the property can either be held until fines are paid or depending on the severity of the crime auctioned by the state and the revenue goes into state coffers. The Cops are never allowed to keep anything.
Of course seized illegal goods like drugs or weapons are destroyed rather than auctioned.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Oooh, I know this one. It's about Cultural Marxism, amirite?
I think this sounds like a great thing, however I do have to question why it took so long for him to do this. How long have Obama and Holder been in office? Now, finally, when we're in Obama's last two lame-duck years, Holder decides to finally do something useful?
So yeah, it's great that he's finally fixed this horrible problem, but he sure could have done it earlier.
He did this because of all the press it's been getting lately - it probably wasn't on his radar before that.
I'm going to guess the complexity of the things they are doing are so vast, shutting them down could produce immediate results showing how you lost actionable intel that would have stopped XYZ idiot from hurting XYZ group/person/people. I’m sure it took less an hour or two to bring the President up to speed on what would be lost and it was a quick, easy decision
Our fundamental liberties and constitution are far more important than any 'safety' any of this brings us. The president swore an oath to defend the constitution, and has obviously failed. It would be nice to have someone with principles, but fools keep voting for Republican and Democrat scumbags.
In Quebec, where I live, the things they can take away are weapons and drugs. Or if your carrying three cell phones, then two were most probably stolen. They can also take your bicycle if they thought you stole it if you did not wear a helmet or pants clips.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
Yeah, if the press made a stink (the only reason we get this much), and the people actually reacted, sure he would (How many people expected Nixon to give us OSHA and the EPA, or expected Eisenhower to send in regular army to desegregate the schools?). It's what politicians do. It's not the president who makes these rules. They just sign the papers. And you'll also find one of the biggest pushers of civil forfeiture was none other than the 'lesser evil' Joe Biden. One big happy family these guys are, who like to bicker on the TV
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
...demonstrably good...
Should be more like atonement. One of the major architects of civil forfeiture is Joe Biden. This is only happening because it finally gets some bad press. Anybody who happens to be in the office would do the same thing. Don't credit to the politician. Give that to the squeaky wheel.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
It's a shame none of that paragraph makes any sense nor is it connected to any real world reality.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Yeah, it does. What I say is extremely simple. With all you guys preaching this 'lesser evil' crap, it very relevant to point out that the people you advocate are the same as the ones you hate. Please, stop. The republicans are no worse than the democrats, and they are no more in opposition than you are with your wife.
Yes, Romney's GA would act identical to Holder under the same circumstance. This is business. Put aside the bullshit.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
With all you guys preaching this 'lesser evil' crap
Lol preaching. Just asking for some evidence of your claims, of which you have none.
it very relevant to point out that the people you advocate are the same as the ones you hate.
Which is great, but repetition won't make it true.
The republicans are no worse than the democrats
Sure. Unless you're a woman. Or a Mexican. Or an atheist. Or a homosexual. Go on, show me where the Dems are busting their asses trying to shut down access to birth control. I'll wait.
and they are no more in opposition than you are with your wife.
Of course they are. You think gaining control of congressional committees is meaningless? What fucking world do you live in?
Yes, Romney's GA would act identical to Holder under the same circumstance.
You have zero fucking evidence for this assertion. Furthermore, looking at former GOP party platforms and administrations, I see fuck all inclination to curb this practice. Please show me the factual basis that underpins this childish assumption.
This is business
Look, he gets something right! Shame you know as little of business as you do politics.
Put aside the bullshit.
I wish you would.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Well hell, If you are going to insist that daytime soaps are for real and never back away to see that it's a studio set, there's nothing to be done. You know, all those people win votes, and have lots of real money backing them up. Maybe you should take a peek at the support structure you seem to deny that exists. You leave the impression that you're just another team player. Sorry if I expected better. This just isn't my game I guess, but unfortunately I'm stuck in it until the end.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Well hell, If you are going to insist that daytime soaps are for real and never back away to see that it's a studio set
Citation needed that:
a) I've made any claims that's my mindset, and
b) That's actually what's going on
You know, all those people win votes, and have lots of real money backing them up.
Gasp! There's money in politics?
Maybe you should take a peek at the support structure you seem to deny that exists.
Citation needed. (In fact, I take these "support structures" more seriously than you do, since you're the one lumping them together into some grey mass).
You leave the impression that you're just another team player.
Perhaps you should look at my comment history, cuz you're definitely getting the wrong impression there.
Sorry if I expected better.
That's hilarious, because your MO is exactly the opposite.
This just isn't my game I guess
Now, you're getting it. Hope for you yet.
but unfortunately I'm stuck in it until the end.
Which would make one think a better appreciation for nuance would be required, lest you spend the next few decades bummed out for the wrong reasons.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Politics, especially the kind with any real influence is one big gray mass of corruption. It takes a specific kind of person to make any headway in the business. The 'honest' ones sit on the bench or get the bums rush. Sorry, but your 'nuance' is bullshit, just another part of the charade to keep the game going. That is the objective, not to win, not to lose, just stay in the game. And I'm not 'bummed out' about anything. I just find it funny/sad when people standing on the beach tell me there's no water, and then give me shit every time I point out they're soaking in it.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Politics, especially the kind with any real influence is one big gray mass of corruption.
Once again, repeating a thing doesn't make it true.
It takes a specific kind of person to make any headway in the business.
Gasp! Politics attracts a certain kind of personality!
The 'honest' ones sit on the bench or get the bums rush.
That...doesn't sound as dire as you think it sounds.
nuance
Oh lord, he links to one article detailing a few limp wristed Democrats so my argument is bullshit! Christ, you can do better than that son. (Hint: Try Walter Karp, not Salon if you're going to be making this argument with any kind of fucking rigour.)
That is the objective, not to win, not to lose, just stay in the game.
Yeah, everybody gets into politics because the money is so good. Everybody.
I just find it funny/sad when people standing on the beach tell me there's no water, and then give me shit every time I point out they're soaking in it.
Your view of the world is so Manichean it's a wonder you're not a Republican voter.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Walter Karp
Funny. I used to read Harpers a lot. And without remembering anybody by name, I frequently find out I'm just posting vague recollections. And after a quick glance at some of his stuff, you leave me wondering where I differ so much. Eh, whatever, I just picked what was closest. The idea is no less valid because you don't like the source. We all know the name for that now, don't we?
Obviously my linguistic skills are lacking, and nobody understands simple things anymore. Everybody does Java and Ruby without knowing assembly, binary, or even basic electricity.
But I must have done something right. Mr. Smith calls me 'hypermaterialist' and a 'lefty', which I find particularly humorous since I post almost word for word the same thing with him as I do here.
You know what? Thanks!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Cry me a river when you can actually argue a point, not ignore others' and waffle on vaguely about the same shit for years.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Who's crying? And how can I argue a point that is based on faith? I'm not in the religious conversion business. You seem to be looking for something that isn't there.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
And how can I argue a point that is based on faith?
You're joking, right? That's pretty much all you've been doing.
I'm not in the religious conversion business.
You will prattle on, though. If it walks like a duck...
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Prattle on together we will, you about republicans*, and me about nature..
*in which, if you are talking about the voters, then we are in agreement, but the politicians on both sides are only going over their spreadsheets and leave all the masturbatory philosophizing for you all to fight over.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
*in which, if you are talking about the voters, then we are in agreement, but the politicians on both sides are only going over their spreadsheets and leave all the masturbatory philosophizing for you all to fight over.
Sadly, real world events do not conform to that sentence.
philosophizing
No wonder you're clueless if that's what you think is going on.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Sadly, real world events do not conform to that sentence.
No, the TV simply doesn't report motivation behind anything. You have to deduce them from observing the results. And the results, after you toss out the bullshit, say that the politicians reflect the voters wishes and corruption perfectly. The behavior they exhibit is consistently highly rewarded by their sponsors(if they play ball) and voters alike. How do you expect them to be? I mean, what is this? Am I supposed to believe that there is some kind of 'morality' here? Sorry, wouldn't be prudent. As obscure as it may seem, self interest is all there is, and when irrational self interest prevails, well, we're living it. You certainly can't single out 'republicans' for it. They simply express themselves a bit more directly and appeal more overtly to primal instinct and fears. The democrats are the same pig with more lipstick and KY. Maybe you've just fallen for the good cop, bad cop routine.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
There's your first mistake, watching the TV in the first place.
Second one being that you think I do...
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Well then I can clue you in on something. Whatever you're watching/reading spews the same crap about democrats and republicans as the TV. Sorry, sir, but your speculations are also nothing more than speculation inspired by a press release. The party created a monster, they chop one leg off, now they're a hero?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Well then I can clue you in on something. Whatever you're watching/reading spews the same crap about democrats and republicans as the TV.
Which includes you, I presume?
but your speculations are also nothing more than speculation
What speculations? You really suck at specifics.
The party created a monster, they chop one leg off, now they're a hero?
What the fuck are you talking about?
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
What the fuck are you talking about?
About your bullshit that democrat politicians are 'better' than republican ones! They create a villain to destroy and you put them on a damn pedestal. It's ludicrous. It's a syndrome. Hell, it's just plain old tribalism. This 'lesser evil' shit is just as bad as the Reagan worship.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
About your bullshit that democrat politicians are 'better' than republican ones!
Citation, please.
you put them on a damn pedestal
No, it's just that you and your "everybody's the same, hur durr" mentality is so fucking myopic, I'm put int he reasonable position of defending a president, an administration, a party and a country I don't even like all that much. THAT'S how retarded you are.
I mean, you can hate politicians all you want, but treating them as several thousand undifferentiated clones is fucking inhuman.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Strange, I always thought the people who won't look past the superficial bullshit were the short sighted ones. Or, maybe 'myopic' has a new meaning, who knows?
And please, don't play lawyer with the 'citation' crap. I showed you an example of their MO. It's the rat bastard's perfectly normal way of doing things. What, you want 10, 20? What's the point of that when you just dismiss it out of hand? That's what Smith and pudge do. So what if Greenwald is a dick and the magazine is a rag, sometimes they get it right. You just don't want to hear it. You write it off as meme. And I'm only saying they're a team, and the business is as fixed as professional wrestling only because of mass myopia of people who won't look past the "two" parties. That would be somebody like d_r, and apparently now you? You guys can identify individual zebras in the herd?
Inhuman? No, merely pathological. Inhuman is a Wallmart shopper the day after Thanksgiving. Actually the politician isn't at fault. The voters reward their bad behavior by constantly reelecting the worst of the worst to get their own little piece of the pie. Citation? Look at the tabulation. You won't find a better one than that. It's all republicans and democrats, playing the Bickersons for a tabloid lapdog press. And the voters are playing the fool who fall for the gag every single time..
What is there in this whole thing that makes you believe that the politician represents anything outside the party and the interests of the big donors and of course himself? The democrats gave us DOMA, NAFTA, damn near infinite copyright, civil forfeiture (the very thing that you're kissing Holder's butt for reducing, not eliminating. Fuck him! He should have done it six years ago), they started deregulating high finance before Reagan got into office, they went along and voted for war, the patriot act (even authored some of the worst parts), etc etc etc. How is playing follow the leader 'less evil'?? Just because they didn't think of it first? To hell with them. They got what they deserved in the midterms for damn good reason. Thems the breaks. The other half played a better game. What stands out through it all is that it is a single party, the party of power. Not a single independent with anything more that a big mouth, certainly not any clout.
You really could have saved yourself a lot of time by simply telling me that you get along by playing along, because it's easy. Being in the center usually is. And 98% of the voters are on your side. Who am I argue, right?
I kinda wonder, are you one of those people who blame the Nader voters for Bush's win? Do you think Obama 'caved' on the ACA's single payer issue?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
All those paragraphs when you didn't read a single word I said...
Fuck is wrong with you?
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
I'm put int he reasonable position of defending a president, an administration, a party and a country I don't even like all that much.
Not be me you're not! You are defending things you want to believe.
All those paragraphs when you didn't read a single word I said...
I'm sorry, what?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
You are defending things you want to believe.
Ah yes. Question other people's motivations, see how far that gets you.
In that vein, you're obviously a tool of the elite, here to sow bullshit and apathy to keep the people down. Hope that paycheck is worth it!
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
:-) Wow... I am amazed... The elite, eh? Yeah, I suppose the people who know better than to pimp for democrats and republicans are kind of an 'elite', considering their statistically insignificant numbers. We do only comprise a little over one percent of the people who vote. YAY! I'm a one percenter! Can't think of anything better.
Geeze, you throw a rope to a guy and he cusses you out for it. Yep, I'm definitely keeping people down. You too, seem to have this little problem of exactly reversing everything I said. This is why I believe your belief systems are highly skewed, and apparently extremely powerful, fully confirming the science of crowd psychology.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Idiot whines when he can't take what he can dish out. News at 11.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Whining?! Man! You're funny as hell! I don't give a damn what you people do. What is it that I 'can't take'?? You can't offend me. Since you all can't be bothered to fix your shit why the hell should I care? This masochism is your cross to bear. All the things you all complain about are your own doing. You, the voters are solely responsible for the people you elect. And in your denials you are being the crybabies, blaming every single thing but your own damn selves. So screw that! I'm only in the audience trying to dodge the shrapnel. People who, in this day, still believe democrats and republicans are in opposition are as dumb as dirt and are arrogant asses with their insistence that they're not the idiots while accusing others of the same (and usually just as corrupt as the people they elect). That is too obvious for any semi awake person not to see. That is the plain simple truth whether the majority says so or not. Of course I can cut them some slack for being so horribly misguided and gullible. I had the apparently mistaken impression you were above that. Ahh well... you have my apologies
So, are you familiar with a guy named Solomon Asch?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Wow, the guy who's trolling Republicans gets modded as +5 Insightful. I call him out on it and I get modded -1 Troll. For the asshat that wasted his mod points on me, I'm a moderate Libertarian. This place is such a joke.