[dsl]

Assets used in the commission of a crime can be seized regardless of if you are charged or even found guilty of that crime. Cars, boats, and houses are regularly seized from suspected drug dealers.

None of these people have been deprived of due process. The due process is to go to the courts to challenge it.

If you don't like either of these points, you'll need to go to the courts and have the laws changed or thrown out. Thats how America works.

EDIT: Downvotes are not how you disagree on HN. Well thought out replies are.

[kijinbear]

I think it depends on what you mean by "due process." If you mean "whatever the law says the government can do, and/or what the government customarily does," there may have been no violation of due process.

However, the phrase "due process" also often means "what the law should say the government should do." Such an interpretation usually appeals to a higher moral authority, the Constitution, etc. This is how people often criticize the PATRIOT Act for violating due process, even though the PATRIOT Act defines clear processes to be followed. These people are saying, in effect, that the processes defined by existing law don't count as "due process."

You are right that court challenges are the way to fix problematic laws. But I disagree that "none of these people have been deprived of due process," because I think that any process worthy of being called "due process" should involve, among others, presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and a bunch of documents signed by judges. I don't know what the law is really like in the US, but seizing property in the absence of a criminal conviction (except temporarily, to gather evidence) sounds like a gross violation of due process.

[rgraham]

This is a circular argument.

"Assets used in the commission of a crime can be seized regardless of if you are charged or even found guilty of that crime."

If you don't have to prove there was a crime then how can you claim that the assets were used in the crime? This would mean the government/police could seize assets with nothing more than finger pointing. I'm ignorant of the law here, but I thought you were innocent until proven guilty. Not "innocent sans assets until proven otherwise."

[sneak]

That's how it works, now. There is no burden of proof.

[rdtsc]

Welcome to American-style legal logic.

[econgeeker]

You're making an assertion of a fact of law when you say: "Assets used in the commission of a crime can be seized regardless of if you are charged or even found guilty of that crime." This is the perspective of those who agree with the Asset Forfeiture law.

However, the constitution is also the law, and the fourth amendment is pretty clear on the matter. Further, other federal laws make it a crime to violate constitutional rights, due process, etc.

If the constitution is the highest law of the land, then every one of these illegal seizures is a crime. If the constitution is not the highest law of the land, then the Asset Forfieture law, which was enacted by congress that was created by the constitution, is null and void because the congress is null and void.

Further, in Mabury v. Madison the supreme court ruled that any law contrary to the constitution was null and void the moment it was enacted, not the moment it is struck down.

This means everyone participating in these thefts of property without due process are liable for their criminal acts.

Due Process requires that a conviction be obtained before seizing assets.

If you want to amend the constitution, there is a procedure for doing so. It requires more than just the congress passing a law.

[adolph]

Civil forfeiture law has been rapidly expanded by the war on drugs. It hasn't been part of "how America works" for very long. I'd say it is an example of "how America doesn't work" and a perversion of the fourth amendment.

[jrockway]

This is why I store all my vacation homes and yachts on a hidden TrueCrypt partition.

[dsl]

Too late to edit, replying to save myself from the HN army...

Just because I explained how it works, dosen't mean I agree with the policy. US asset seizure and forfeiture laws suck. They are an abuse of the "war on drugs" powers in the same way that wholesale wiretapping is an abuse of the "war on terror" powers.

Stop downvoting me like I had something to do with the creation of this system!

[wnight]

> EDIT: Downvotes are not how you disagree on HN. Well thought out replies are.

Well thought out posts get well thought out replies.

For one, we're talking about foreigners here and you're saying they aren't deprived of due process - they merely need to come to American courts to get the laws changed. Hello!?

Second, you're missing the whole "your TLD is one of ours so you're in our jurisdiction no matter where you are" angle to this. The USA is attempting, yet again, to make its laws global.

Third, even if this was just domain name seizure as you seem to think, the government didn't warn or even inform people, let alone charge them with something. They aren't even officially admitting to it such that you can appeal. Even for Americans there is no due process.

Fourth, your "just like our drug laws" attitude betrays an incredible lack of perspective. Your drug laws are only slightly better than Indonesia and Saudi Arabia. Your forfeiture laws are not only fundamentally unjust but also rife with corruption.

Then you capped it off with "That's how America Works."

If you happened into a tech article on a subject you didn't know anything and added your opinion you'd be downvoted for getting in the way. Why should this be any different?

[diogenescynic]

Pot calling the kettle black, much? Please stop the anti-American trolling. I've noticed you consistently go from thread to thread spreading anti-American propaganda without citing any facts and insulting others: Africa like how you stood by and watched Rwanda butcher itself, quibbling over using the word 'genocide' to avoid hurting your allies, and own, historical images.

Or how WW2 the USA waited out much of the war while its allies were getting pummeled. Joining the war only when the USA was attacked. As spoils the USA has military bases in Germany, Italy, Japan, etc, and joint political control of much oil-rich and strategically important territory: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2729132

[nowarninglabel]

Seems like you should be the one reading the guidelines: http://ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

[danssig]

Is this post for real? I think this account should be banned, it has to be a troll.

[gcb]

"I don't even live there"