[tptacek]

There is a well-established due process scheme for seizing assets. It has a lower standard of proof because it establishes only that a crime took place and that an asset is linked to the crime, without establishing culpability.

[MichaelGG]

I'm guessing "well-established due process" is the part the rest of HN takes objection to.

You seem pretty with it and level-headed, so it seems like we just have different priors.

[fnordfnordfnord]

Calling it due process is like calling ROT13 encryption. It is a sham. What's well-established is the fact that asset forfeiture is abused far and wide, and for every type of asset and supposed crime.

[tptacek]

What's well established is that it has been abused. What's not well established is how widespread the abuse is, because, obviously, reporters only write about the abuses.