Quote:
Originally Posted by smooth
well, it's nice that you feel that way. but unfortunately very few others seem to. BUT, it just puzzles me that you "discover" these little tidbits from time to time and post them as new developments. I just wish you'd do some legwork before posting inflammatory headers and day to day proceedings as if they are revelations. I just personally think it would help your case if you'd do some rudimentary research and post something along the lines of:
hey tfp, I've been looking at the development of asset seizure legislation and it's expansion to encroach upon what I view as fundamental protections of citizen property. I realize the current legislation, enacted almost a decade ago, was spurred by public sentiment to do something, anything, about narcotics trafficking, but it just doesn't seem to balance this notion of rights of citizens versus ability to apprehend criminals and/or circumvent their behavior for me.
and then propose what you would do in place of asset forfeiture to address the reality that it's more often than not difficult (some might argue even impossible) to adequately stop narcotic crime under a more traditional understanding of how the justice system should work.
if you thought this out more extensively, my hope would be that you would begin to form consistent opinions across the board. and by that I mean I would like to see you examine your thoughts regarding "victims rights" vs. those of the accused and stuffs like that. I'm not downing you, I just think I'd be more interested in the conversation if it went along these lines.
in any case, I dug this up for you and figured that, given your interest in the history of things, you'd like to know the roots of the 2000 reform act that these forfeitures currently operate under:
-- http://www.independent.org/publicati...e=summary&id=3
|
Smooth, I thank you for your input and your legwork. While my inflammatory postings and revelations seem less interesting to you, as well as others, they are interesting to at least a few people here. Now, that's not to say that I don't care how you perceive my postings or thoughts, but I don't post on here to attract just your interest, merely to express my thoughts and opinions on the matter. My postings aren't 'revelations', although they come accross that way, but I feel that by letting some of these continuing abridgements of civil rights slide step by step, then people will look at these cases and say 'eh, just another forfeiture case, no big deal'. This does nothing but turn the heat up on the slowly cooking frog. I want to snap people out of the mind set that things have precedence and therefore must be constitutional.