greenleaves - 1:09 am on Mar 9, 2012 (gmt 0)
What people replying to me don't understand is I'm sick of criminals being coddled by bleeding hearts under the guise of protecting freedom.
I'm a libertarian in case you didn't notice. And for those uninformed, that is not the same as liberal (even if the words sounds similar)
In china and russia they don't have that bleeding heart attitude. Maybe you could go there where the 'good government' defends you from the 'bad guys' without having to worry about 'rights'. I'm sure everyone here who believes in freedom and due process will not miss the 'anti due process' camp moving to a place where there is none.
BTW, very 'adult of you' to first discuss facts, and when the facts are too much for you, hidding behind 'feelings' (that is what you did) But don't worry, most american's are with you; which is why we are in the state we are in.
Believe when I say I know of what I speak. Further, the burden of proof is on the suspect(s) that funds obtained from an illegal activity were not used to obtain/maintain the assets or property in question. Until such time the suspect(s) can prove otherwise, the government can hold onto those assets indefinitely. This is nothing new and dates back long before the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, and even computers.
I'm totally against that statute (because it violates the principal of the presumption of innocence). But even then, the government didnd't follow due process, even with taking into account that statute. See, when property is seized under that statute, the person whom it seized it from has the right to:
1- Know what charges are involved in the case
2- Be able to contest the confiscation throught an Adversarial preliminary hearing
Both of these rights were VIOLATED in the confiscation. So as my school teacher would say; stop ASS-Uming. It only makes an #*$! out of you and me.
Call me a bleeding heart, but I prefer that we prove the person has actually done something criminal before treating them like a criminal.
We live in sad times indeed when this opinion is the minority in the 'land of the free'.