What would be different about "Nevada cops use civil forfeiture to steal a person's life savings" or "Nevada cops use civil forfeiture to steal a citizen's life savings" ?
I understand that there is some veneration of veterans, but don't all citizens have the same rights?
For legal cases, a drug runner having her cash unconstitutionally seized is a winner. The defendant is not sympathetic. But as you say, she has her rights that the court should recognise.
It is unclear, however, if civil asset forfeiture is unconstitutional. (“Unreasonable” is a big word.) That would make it a legislative question.
In politics, sympathy matters. Guilty people having their rights violated doesn’t tend to rouse the majority. That’s where someone who can cut through to a Blue Lives Matter activist carries merit.
It seems pretty clear to me that you have to tie the bill of rights in knots to justify civil asset forfeiture as constitutional.
There is unfortunately some pretty deep precedent for states (note: less so the U.S. government) holding property while disputes around it were adjudicated, in some cases going back to the founding of our republic. For details look at the opinions in the cases IJ has previously filed.
The fact that the DEA ignored the 90-day timeline for filing a case, on the other hand, may be material if it can be shown to form a pattern of behaviour…
I disagree. I think it’s plain as day that civil asset forfeiture as currently practiced is unconstitutional. The only thing unclear is whether the Supreme Court will recognize it as such
What if Mr Lara (who is not a guilty or accused drug runner) has not been a veteran?
Sorry, I accidentally a word, and this changed the meaning.
"not quite the same" is of course UK English for "it's totally different"
Source: Watching news articles over decades of the VA denying "service related" for injuries and poisoning, so the government isn't held responsible. Agent Orange and cancer, for example. Or burn pits in the middle east wars. Or concussions from explosions.
On another level, even though all citizens have the same rights, it's nonetheless a bit ironic for police to abuse those who've actively put their lives on the line to defend them.
>Afghanistan: Minister apologises over 'inaccurate' veteran suicide claim
As a non-UK person, am curious about the use of the word "veteran" in the headline. What would be different about "Afghanistan: Minister apologises over 'inaccurate' person suicide claim" or "Afghanistan: Minister apologises over 'inaccurate' citizen suicide claim" ?
I understand that there is some veneration of veterans, but don't all citizens have the same rights? Since you're in London, perhaps you can shed some light on this for me.
1) this is whataboutism. One can ask about one thing when another thing exists, it's not a valid rebuke to say "what about that?". I have given no opinion on that BBC story either way, as it's not relevant. I'm not the country that I'm in, for starters. I would gladly criticise its politics when it's on topic and in good faith. Here it is neither.
2) "shocked" is your spin, and an inaccurate one. I specifically said "curious".
3) as you are repeatedly refusing to address, these are not actually comparable - who in the US case is comparable for the armed forces minister talking about the veteran? Who in the US case has the remit to talk about veterans, specifically?
This is a waste of our time.
Are they just going to switch some logos and keep it up?
You would expect the "gov.af" domain to change hands?
similarly, https://twitter.com/POTUS does when the administration changes.
From what I can tell previous administration was trying to sabotage civilized transfer in every possible way… and the fallout is on display, including AF withdrawal.
However, is/was there such setup in AF government? For all I know, everyone just packed and went home/abroad…
I imagine they sit somewhere in government building, look out the window and “oh, wells, here goes last plane out of Kabul! Time to switch flags!”