PDA

View Full Version : Rand Paul: ‘I Think Civil Asset Forfeiture Is a Terrible Idea Until You’ve Convicted Someone




CaseyJones
02-13-2017, 03:54 PM
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/melanie-arter/sen-rand-paul-i-think-civil-asset-forfeiture-terrible-idea-until-youve


Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) told C-SPAN’s “Newsmakers” on Sunday that he thinks civil asset forfeiture – where police can seize, then keep or sell any property they suspect is involved in a crime regardless of whether or not the owner is arrested or even convicted - “is a terrible idea until you’ve convicted someone.”

“There was a discussion the other day in the White House about civil asset forfeiture. I think civil asset forfeiture is a terrible idea until you’ve convicted someone, and I’d like to have that discussion with the president,” Paul said.

Paul was asked how concerned he was that the Trump administration could expand surveillance powers given that Paul voted against the confirmation of Mike Pompeo to head the CIA, but voted for Attorney General Jeff Sessions to lead the Justice Department.

“How concerned are you that the Sessions Justice Department, the Pompeo CIA, the potential ODNI administration of Dan Coats are going to go back more towards the direction that you’ve been opposed for many years?” a reporter asked.

Paul said he was “very concerned, and while I do have some agreements with President Trump on less regulation, less taxes, replacing Obamacare, on surveillance we may not be – or on privacy – on the same wavelength. We’ll have to see.”

Paul said addressing the issue of civil asset forfeiture is important, because it unfairly targets poor people.

“I’ve had that discussion with Senator Sessions,” he said, referring to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who was sworn in last week, “and I think some of the things we’ve done particularly to poor people—poor people in our country deal in cash more than wealthier people, and more than people who have their life better planned out who might deal with money in a different way.

“They have cash, and they walk around—doesn’t make them automatically guilty of a crime because they deal in cash, and so I think in order to take someone’s money from them, the government ought to prove that it was ill gotten,” Paul said, adding that the other side of that argument is “if someone’s caught with 50 kilos of some kind of drug and then there’s $50,000 in cash sitting there that somehow the people that are caught are going to get it back. That never happens.

“What we’re really, really talking about is people driving down the road, walking down the street…they just have their possessions taken from them without any kind of conviction,” he said.

“There’s a real danger, and there have been instances of up and down the country of little towns on the side of highways just pulling over everybody and just taking their money, almost like some sort of Robin Hood kind of scheme, so I do worry about that, and I will continue to stand up for what I feel is right no matter no matter whether it’s a Republican or Democrat in office,” Paul said.

fisharmor
02-13-2017, 04:44 PM
Same position as on the drones, it looks like.
Meaning he's totally okay with it if you make these crooked, evil bureaucrats fill out a couple of pieces of paper before they do it.

dannno
02-13-2017, 04:49 PM
Same position as on the drones, it looks like.
Meaning he's totally okay with it if you make these crooked, evil bureaucrats fill out a couple of pieces of paper before they do it.

lol, one step at a time.

fisharmor
02-13-2017, 04:52 PM
lol, one step at a time.

See that is the entire problem that sank the Liberty Movement. You do not make political gains by taking one step at a time! You make political gains by pushing for 300% of what it is that you hope to achieve in the short-term. You would think that after failing so many times we would have figured out this is politics 101.
When you fight for one small thing then that one thing becomes the only thing that you have to give up in order to get anything done politically. It's why both parties have major platforms that they run on and never actually make any movement on. Republicans will never banned abortion. Democrats will never stop black people getting strangled on the sidewalk.
If Republicans were fighting for unwed pregnant women to be executed, and Democrats were fighting for total abolition of any law enforcement at all, then they would get what they want.
Asking for bureaucratic measures is straight up loser talk.

phill4paul
02-13-2017, 05:03 PM
Same position as on the drones, it looks like.
Meaning he's totally okay with it if you make these crooked, evil bureaucrats fill out a couple of pieces of paper before they do it.

Seemed to me he said asset forfeiture should only happen if a conviction occurs.

eleganz
02-13-2017, 05:43 PM
Seemed to me he said asset forfeiture should only happen if a conviction occurs.

Why are you able to read and comprehend and fisharmor is not?

groverblue
02-13-2017, 05:45 PM
Weak libertarian. We need more hardcore Ron Pauls.

eleganz
02-13-2017, 05:46 PM
See that is the entire problem that sank the Liberty Movement. You do not make political gains by taking one step at a time! You make political gains by pushing for 300% of what it is that you hope to achieve in the short-term. You would think that after failing so many times we would have figured out this is politics 101.
When you fight for one small thing then that one thing becomes the only thing that you have to give up in order to get anything done politically. It's why both parties have major platforms that they run on and never actually make any movement on. Republicans will never banned abortion. Democrats will never stop black people getting strangled on the sidewalk.
If Republicans were fighting for unwed pregnant women to be executed, and Democrats were fighting for total abolition of any law enforcement at all, then they would get what they want.
Asking for bureaucratic measures is straight up loser talk.

Audit the FED wouldn't be in the position it is today (cleared majority of house and nearly clearing the senate and a POTUS willing to potentially sign vs absolutely not.) without incremental progress.

Only SJW millennials are self-entitled enough to think that they'll get everything they want if they only demand it.


Thomas Massie recently introduced legislation to abolish the Dept. of Education, how far will that realistically get?

euphemia
02-13-2017, 05:58 PM
How would that look if the citizens had a right to civil asset forfeiture for what the House and Senate have stolen from them? I would like to liquidate most of them because they have gotten rich off of my hard work and yours. Rand and a few others had legitimate jobs before they came to Washington, but most didn't.

Rudeman
02-13-2017, 06:01 PM
See that is the entire problem that sank the Liberty Movement. You do not make political gains by taking one step at a time! You make political gains by pushing for 300% of what it is that you hope to achieve in the short-term. You would think that after failing so many times we would have figured out this is politics 101.
When you fight for one small thing then that one thing becomes the only thing that you have to give up in order to get anything done politically. It's why both parties have major platforms that they run on and never actually make any movement on. Republicans will never banned abortion. Democrats will never stop black people getting strangled on the sidewalk.
If Republicans were fighting for unwed pregnant women to be executed, and Democrats were fighting for total abolition of any law enforcement at all, then they would get what they want.
Asking for bureaucratic measures is straight up loser talk.

One step at a time worked for the Republicans (after Bush many thought the Republican party was done, now they are at their strongest point in maybe a century), that method does require focus and patience. The problem with libertarians is that they love to attack their own instead of supporting them. That is why there is never any progress.


Simple question libertarians should ask themselves. Would this be better than or improve what we have today? If the answer is yes then support it, if the answer is no then don't.

timosman
02-13-2017, 06:07 PM
One step at a time worked for the Republicans (after Bush many thought the Republican party was done, now they are at their strongest point in maybe a century), that method does require focus and patience. The problem with libertarians is that they love to attack their own instead of supporting them. That is why there is never any progress.


Simple question libertarians should ask themselves. Would this be better than or improve what we have today? If the answer is yes then support it, if the answer is no then don't.

This doesn't work with the numbers libertarians have. Now check Al Sharpton.

Matt Collins
02-13-2017, 06:57 PM
Then why did he vote for Sessions?

Anti Federalist
02-13-2017, 07:10 PM
Fucking mind boggling that we're even having this conversation, the notion that government can just take your shit because it (your shit not you) might be guilty or something.

Land of the free my ass.

Krugminator2
02-13-2017, 07:38 PM
Same position as on the drones, it looks like.
Meaning he's totally okay with it if you make these crooked, evil bureaucrats fill out a couple of pieces of paper before they do it.

Good point. Bernie Madoff earned that money. Why should the government be able to take the fruits of his labor through civil asset forfeiture after he is convicted? He stole it fair and square. Rand is such a big gubmint slaver. Thieves Lives Matter.

This is the kind of terrible incrementalism that has created this slave state. First you take the money that criminals earn committing a crime next thing you know Rand will start advocating that police take children away from parents who molest them.

fisharmor
02-13-2017, 07:55 PM
Why are you able to read and comprehend and fisharmor is not?

I repeated exactly what he said. They can take assets if they file the paperwork. You can call a conviction something special if you want, but it reduces to filing the paperwork.

William Tell
02-13-2017, 08:05 PM
Rand be like: lets ban civil asset forfeiture

Some libertarians be like: Screw you sellout bastard NeoCon Whore! why aren't you trying to ban criminal asset forfeiture you fart swallower?

Other libertarians be like: um we could actually ban civil asset forfeiture and 90% of Americans are on our side so why not own this issue instead of making it into a losing one???

fisharmor
02-13-2017, 08:05 PM
One step at a time worked for the Republicans (after Bush many thought the Republican party was done, now they are at their strongest point in maybe a century), that method does require focus and patience. The problem with libertarians is that they love to attack their own instead of supporting them. That is why there is never any progress.


Simple question libertarians should ask themselves. Would this be better than or improve what we have today? If the answer is yes then support it, if the answer is no then don't.

The reason he liberty movement is dead and buried is because of you who went balls-on-chin into the political machine and ignored the reality around you.

We have a man in power who is threatening to destroy the careers of state officials who disagree with him, making regular claims that the police state isn't powerful enough, is totally ok with killing 8 year olds, and is ramping the drug war up farther than it has been since the 80s.

But that's all ok because the Republican party is healthy? Are you people fucking insane?

eleganz
02-13-2017, 08:45 PM
Rand be like: lets ban civil asset forfeiture

Some libertarians be like: Screw you sellout bastard NeoCon Whore! why aren't you trying to ban criminal asset forfeiture you fart swallower?

Other libertarians be like: um we could actually ban civil asset forfeiture and 90% of Americans are on our side so why not own this issue instead of making it into a losing one???

Someone ban this guy, he's making too much sense.

Matt Collins
02-13-2017, 09:37 PM
Land of the free my ass.Land of the free? Whoever told you that is your enemy! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSHtniUl8V4)

Superfluous Man
02-13-2017, 09:41 PM
In before the Trumpsters call Rand a cuck for being anti-cop.

Feeding the Abscess
02-13-2017, 10:04 PM
One step at a time worked for the Republicans (after Bush many thought the Republican party was done, now they are at their strongest point in maybe a century), that method does require focus and patience. The problem with libertarians is that they love to attack their own instead of supporting them. That is why there is never any progress.


Simple question libertarians should ask themselves. Would this be better than or improve what we have today? If the answer is yes then support it, if the answer is no then don't.

The problem with libertarians as it pertains to politics is, even including the 'socially liberal, fiscally conservative' libertarians, we're outnumbered 100 to 1.

Rudeman
02-13-2017, 10:24 PM
The reason he liberty movement is dead and buried is because of you who went balls-on-chin into the political machine and ignored the reality around you.

We have a man in power who is threatening to destroy the careers of state officials who disagree with him, making regular claims that the police state isn't powerful enough, is totally ok with killing 8 year olds, and is ramping the drug war up farther than it has been since the 80s.

But that's all ok because the Republican party is healthy? Are you people $#@!ing insane?

If anyone is insane it appears to be you. Who knew something so blase could trigger a person like this.

Rudeman
02-13-2017, 10:35 PM
The problem with libertarians as it pertains to politics is, even including the 'socially liberal, fiscally conservative' libertarians, we're outnumbered 100 to 1.

Maybe but it doesn't help that to be a libertarian you have to go through a purity test and anything not in lockstep with libertarian ideologue is perceived as traitorous. My point is there are a lot of people who consider themselves to be libertarian or libertarian leaning, now they may be viewed as "faux" libertarians but it's better than nothing. Beggars can't be choosers. If a person is truly socially liberal but not fiscally conservative (or vice versa) and still considers themselves a libertarian why not embrace that? I admit I'm not perfect when it comes to this (opposition to Gary Johnson)

Maybe I'm wrong but it's better than doing the same thing over and over.

Rudeman
02-13-2017, 10:46 PM
This doesn't work with the numbers libertarians have. Now check Al Sharpton.

It won't work if we continue to put libertarians through a purity test. If it isn't perfect then it's awful mentality is so absurd to me. If libertarians were more willing to embrace people and ideas that were libertarian leaning, as a whole it would improve things. The mistake a lot of people (including Rand) made was assuming the liberty movement = libertarians or liberty minded people. That wasn't the case but it can show how powerful a movement can be if we include non-libertarians to push libertarian ideas.