Sessions: "Get arrested, lose everything you own"

I paraphrase, but not much. After a brief rollback during the Obama years, police powers to seize the belongings of people who have only been arrested (not even charged, let alone convicted) are back with a vengeance.

"With care ─ we gotta be careful ─ and professionalism, we plan to develop policies to increase forfeitures," Sessions told members of the National District Attorneys Association. "No criminal should be allowed to keep the proceeds of their illegal activity."

Did you spot what he did there?

A while back there was furious debate on ATS about how seatbelt laws were a diabolical infringement of personal freedoms. I wonder what sorry excuses will be trundled out to argue that this police power is acceptable. Let's be having them.

a reply to: audubon

What he did there was make a very specific and clear statement that criminals should not be allowed to keep things that were purchased with the proceeds of their illegal activities. I'm OK with that. You think they should be able to keep all the stuff they stole or bought with money from criminal acts or what?

a reply to: tigertatzen

Look again.

a reply to: audubon


He said that he is against criminal activities. That's it. Nothing wrong with that unless you are a criminal or related to one.

a reply to: audubon

Posted:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: audubon

This continued under Obama as well, believe me, however either way I consider this inappropriate under any administration as its a blatant oversight of the right to a trial and jury of your peers and innocent until proven guilty.

Wrong no matter what your stripes.

What Sessions has to say realistically shouldn't be argued against.

Criminals SHOULD NOT be able to "keep," their earnings "earned," through illegal activities.

The thing is, through civil asset forfeiture - you can have your earnings taken due to "criminal activity," without formally being charged with any sort of criminal activity.

Very, very big difference.

From the article:

Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, responded to Sessions' announcement with a defense of the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits the taking of private property for public use, without just compensation. "I oppose the government overstepping its boundaries by assuming a suspect's guilt and seizing their property before they even have their day in court," Paul said in a statement.

“The fact they're seizing property and not connecting it to a crime down the road shows how ineffective it is.”

Is this what people want America to be? Guilty until proven innocent?

Among the most egregious took place in Tenaha, Texas, where a lawsuit exposed a local law enforcement program in which officers targeted out-of-state drivers, searched their cars on flimsy evidence, seized cash and threatened the subjects with bogus charges if they refused to waive their rights to the property.

^ this is what HAS happened, and will continue to happen as long as the "small-government," clowns insist that these actions are a necessary precaution (for whatever emotionally-charged reason).

Nearly half the states have taken some steps to roll back civil forfeiture laws, Sheth said in a statement. "The Attorney General’s plan to increase forfeitures is jarringly out of step with those positive developments."

Hmm. Kind of reminds me of another state-rights issue that the federal government can't help but include its grubby-paws in. "Anti-establishment," lol, my ass.

a reply to: Trueman

Again it needs to be proven youre a criminal 1st through a jury of your peers....slippery slope imo otherwise.

Holy clickbait bulls#, Batman!

originally posted by: audubon
I paraphrase, but not much. After a brief rollback during the Obama years, police powers to seize the belongings of people who have only been arrested (not even charged, let alone convicted) are back with a vengeance.

"With care ─ we gotta be careful ─ and professionalism, we plan to develop policies to increase forfeitures," Sessions told members of the National District Attorneys Association. "No criminal should be allowed to keep the proceeds of their illegal activity."

Did you spot what he did there?

A while back there was furious debate on ATS about how seatbelt laws were a diabolical infringement of personal freedoms. I wonder what sorry excuses will be trundled out to argue that this police power is acceptable. Let's be having them.

Can we take all of Session's stuff now that he has purgered himself again?

originally posted by: tigertatzen
a reply to: audubon

What he did there was make a very specific and clear statement that criminals should not be allowed to keep things that were purchased with the proceeds of their illegal activities. I'm OK with that. You think they should be able to keep all the stuff they stole or bought with money from criminal acts or what?

You're (conveniently) leaving out the part about CONVINCTED criminals.

You know, that silly non-essential backwards liberalism that's called the court of law and the presumption of innocence.

You're (purposefully) muddying the issue to provide disinformation to push an agenda.

This has absolutely nothing to do with CONVINCTED criminals having their illegal earnings taken away.

This has EVERYTHING to do with "criminals," - who have NOT been found guilty in a trial by their peers - having their goods stolen because of supposed criminal behaviorism.

a reply to: RomeByFire

I over looked that myself, thanks

Even today, do you know how many cars get impounded and the "Criminal" never convicted, but are to poor to pay the fee to get their property back.

It's actually so bad all you have to do is make a cop mad and he may be able to scan your bank card after he "smells marijuana"

Oklahoma in acted a roadside civil asset seizure program and the Governor had to intervene pretry quick

a reply to: audubon

Drug dealers should get their belongings confiscated. After all they bought it would drug money. What is wrong with that?

Now maybe there are some in law enforcement that will abuse the law but that is on them. Lock them up.

NOT ONE PENNY should be taken FROM ANYONE if they have not been proven guilty of a crime. And even in that case, it needs to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the money or property was obtained DIRECTLY as a result of the crime.

This whole asset forfeiture thing makes me uneasy.

Maybe I will be for it if the CIA loses ALL of its funding/assets/property....since, you know, they pretty much get their entire black budget from the drug trade.

a reply to: amfirst1

um...NO.

how it works in SC and TX is you have to have the fine money ON YOU at the time of a mere traffic offense or your crap gets impounded. On the spot.

It's been happening for a long time now and totally legal in those jurisdictions. If what Sessions was advocating actually worked 1/2 of wall street bankers would be broke an homeless They aren't so it's safe to assume the double standard is well and fine in the USA.

The problem with enforcing this wonderful idea is you have spouses who did NOT break the law, did NOT know where that money came from and this will disproportionally affect women and children. Plus a good many are renters and don't have tons of assets to confiscate.

Currently we have enough laws on the books to address this, they just need to be evenly enforced across all socio-economic groups. What Sessions is proposing is nothing more than a good sound-bite that does nothing.

I'm not anti-republican, but this is dumb as a sock full of soup.

originally posted by: tigertatzen
a reply to: audubon

What he did there was make a very specific and clear statement that criminals should not be allowed to keep things that were purchased with the proceeds of their illegal activities. I'm OK with that. You think they should be able to keep all the stuff they stole or bought with money from criminal acts or what?

Drug dealing, Drug smuggling, Armed robbery, Casino winnings, Insider dealing, Corruption, tax fraud/evasion, Parking ticket violations

Which ones will always be caught?

Please continue in the existing thread.