SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
“You follow drugs, you get drug addicts and drug dealers. But you start to follow the money, and you don't know where the f*** it's gonna take you.”
This oft-cited wisdom comes from Detective Lester Freamon, a character in the classic HBO series The Wire, which tracked how an elite task force of (fictional) Baltimore cops used electronic surveillance to bring down criminal networks. But, the sentiment is ironic to a fault: if you keep following the money, it might take you right back to the police.
Asset forfeiture has long been a topic of controversy in law enforcement. Cops and prosecutors have had the power to seize property and cash from suspects before anyone has actually been convicted of a crime (usually narcotics-related). Then these law enforcement agencies have plugged a portion of that money (and money derived from auctioning of property) into their own budgets, allowing them to spend in ways that possibly would not have passed scrutiny during the formal appropriations process.Critics note that asset forfeiture creates a perverse incentive for policing priorities: the more assets cops seize, the more money they get to spend. Satirist John Oliver characterized the practice as akin to “legalized robbery by law enforcement” in a must-watch segment on his show Last Week Tonight. News organizations, including New York Times, the New Yorker and the Washington Free Beacon have recently outlined abuses of the system.
[...]
The Washington Post has released its giant cache of Equitable Sharing Agreements from thousands of local law enforcement agencies around the country. We urge you to dig in, find your local cops, identify out how they’ve spend this money, and let the world know what you find.
(Score: 1, Troll) by frojack on Friday January 23 2015, @01:36AM
Not sure why you had to get all partisan about this.
Because in this case, most of the press about this issue came FIRST from Fox, and any mention of Fox brings out a lot of people who aren't too fond of their karma.
I'm not saying the situation wouldn't be reversed in the Republicans were in power.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Friday January 23 2015, @01:57AM
Did you even look at the links I posted? The Atlantic article is from 2011(!).
And this one from the New Yorker [newyorker.com] is from 2013.
So. The media on both "sides" (the only reason there are "sides" is that those who want to perpetuate their own power use that old chestnut to divide us) has been covering this issue as it's really quite disturbing and, frankly, incredibly outrageous.
The media has, over the years, reported on this ever since the government started to do this as a part of RICO cases back in the '70s. Things got much worse under Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and Obama. Now people are actually paying attention.
Perhaps you should look at your motivations in trying to blame a "side." The truth is that this has been going on for a long time and getting worse under both D and R administrations.
At least something positive is happening. Or is it improper to say that because there's a D in the White House? Please.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr