DOJ helps local cops get around state limits on civil forfeiture


#1

[Permalink]


#2

It is not the person who is charged with a crime, it is the stuff. You might have civil rights including unreasonable seizure but your big screen TV and house have no civli rights when charged with a crime.
YOINK!


#3

Can anyone think of a way to get the ‘state’s rights’ enthusiasts worked up about the fact that the Federal Gummint is Stealing Our Asset Forfeiture Cases!!! ?

While the interested party is in-state(the local PD), it certainly does seem to be a ‘state’s rights’ issue that a local or state police department can trivially sidestep state laws on civil forfeiture merely by alleging nominal cooperation with the feds on something.

Seems like the sort of thing that anyone actually interested in the rights of states beyond those involving keeping the darkies down should really have an interest in.


#4

I am subscribed to their mailings, and I can assure you that the extreme right has been very concerned with civil forfeiture for a very long time. They’ve been screaming about it for over a decade.


#6

Libertarian-leaning types (who are usually state rights types) have been following and reporting on (and actively fighting against) civil forfeiture for years. Republicans are generally for state rights like they’re for “small government,” which is to say, only when it suits them or not at all.


#7

So the U.S. is now officially a plutokleptocracy.


#8

You’d probably be surprised to find out how many conservatives are against asset forfeiture. Any thread on the subject on any conservative site will probably shake out 3:1 against or more.

The reason I say “surprised” is that use of language like

indicates to me that rather than make common cause with anyone you disagree with to get rid of something you both dislike, you’d much prefer to stay in the bubble with those who agree with you 100%.


#9

We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.


#10

And yet all these conservatives, libertarians, and far-righters seem to have completely failed to vote against those who perpetuate the system. hmmm?


#11

And what fraction of people is that, exactly?

Edit: @Medievalist @lolipop_jones: Good to know, I’m sure they do say that, but apparently they’re not concerned enough to actually do anything about it? Any state government (of which many are Republican-controlled) could end this in an afternoon. They do find plenty of time to lengthen prison sentences, restrict voting rights, and refuse to expand medicare, though.


#12

I’m sure that my next-door neighbor is totally guilty of all those things, and you should totally refuse to join him in protesting civil forfeiture, because he instantly became totally and inherently evil when he registered as a Republican.

After all, it’s more important to have correct ideology than join together and get things done, right?


#13

Are we in Topsy-turvy world here today, or did the Democrats in the room take the brown acid?

I voted against George W. Bush for President four times. Did you? Not unless you voted in the Republican primary, you didn’t. Did you vote for Obama? Then you voted to perpetuate the system, OK?

This conversation has taken an amazing and absurd turn. It seems that hatred of Republicans and Libertarians is stronger than hatred of civil forfeiture… good to know, I guess.


#14

POTUS is almost completely irrelevant here. There’s a few thousand Fed and State congresscritters who maintain these forfeiture laws. How many of THEM have been voted out, even in so-called Red districts?


#15

Right… because the president has no control whatsoever over the Department of Justice

<backs away very slowly, maintaining eye contact>


#16

I have taken to standing back, slack-jawed and gawking at people insisting that Obama is not responsible for anything because the President of the United States is a position that has virtually no power to do anything.

I mean, I think the Republicans have largely gone over the cliff from bad people to cartoonishly evil, but there’s no point in pretending that the Democrats haven’t largely joined them. The US is a one-dollar-one-vote “democracy” and both parties get their money from the same people.


#17

I only had opportunity to vote against G-Dub 3 times, and I took advantage of each. Michigan has open primaries, and I don’t belong to any party. Green is the closest to how I lean, but I won’t join them or anyone else (how else would I have enough junk mail to start fires in the fall if not for those stupid mailers from both dominant parties).

I do, however, believe asset forfeiture is a gross violation of the 4th Amendment, and never should’ve been contemplated, let alone made law. It would be lovely if a candidate would run on a platform of repealing the law on the Federal level, but I haven’t come across such a candidate yet.


#18

There are many such candidates, but they typically come with some pretty major baggage you might not want to carry along into office.

Libertarians and Republicans have tried to make this a major campaign issue for decades. Ron Paul ran for President with civil forfeiture as a talking point. Rand Paul (R-Ky) has introduced legislation to reform forfeiture in the Senate, and Scott Garrett (R-NJ) in the House. Nearly every right-wing blog or website has decried civil forfeiture, and the Federal government’s deep involvement with it, for as long as they have existed.


#19

I’ve mentioned here before that it would be fascinating to see a Rand Paul - Hillary Clinton campaign being discussed here on BB. He could run to what’s normally considered the “left” of her in several ways.


#20

Hillary and Rand? Interesting idea! I’m not a fan of either one, but I might well agree with them everywhere they agree with each other.

There’s really no political party for the vast majority of Americans. Do you believe that abortion should be available and safe, and also that women should be able to legally carry deadly weapons for self-defense? NO PARTY FOR YOU! Which belief will you sacrifice?

Do you believe that fracking is an unpleasant but necessary step towards an agriculturally based distributed domestic energy architecture, using existing proven technology? NO PARTY FOR YOU! It’s frack and drill forever until we strangle in our own poisons, or no fracking at all and start building windmills while the cost of energy breaks the middle class, choose one only.

The whole political landscape is a dizzying maze of false dichotomies, designed to keep the voting populace at each other’s throats, so that existing economic and political powers stay rich and powerful.


#21

Uh huh. Or maybe not…
https://www.ij.org/part-ii-grading-the-states-2

Any thread on the subject on any conservative site will probably shake out 3:1 against or more.

Given the data from the site referenced above, you have successfully proven that the people on your conservative sites either don’t bother to vote or they consistently vote with their head up their ass.

Sadly, the same appears to be true for the vast majority of blue states.

If the people on your conservative sites want to actually make a difference, rather than just sit around talking shit, this is a great place to start…