Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: It appears that Spain is on the verge of doing something Obama refuses to do [View all]KansDem
(28,498 posts)33. If corporations are now "people"...
Iceland already arrested and charged their crooked bankers, and took over the banks as soon as they discovered the corruption there.
...then why can't the Forfeiture and Seizure Act be enforced? It is for "the war on drugs," and now drunk drivers, so why not for criminal bankers and brokers?
Forfeiture, the government seizure of property connected to illegal activity, has been a major weapon in the Federal government's "war on drugs" since the mid-eighties. Two recent developments, however, have called attention to the darker side of this practice: a decision by New York City's Mayor, Rudolph Guiliani, to deploy forfeiture against drunk drivers, and a House-approved bill that would, if signed into law, drastically narrow the scope of the federal forfeiture statutes. Forfeiture is a potent deterent, as well as a revenue source on which law enforcement has grown increasingly dependent. However, it brings with it far fewer procedural safeguards than the criminal law.
In the words of former President George Bush, "<a>sset forfeiture laws allow <the government> to take the ill-gotten gains of drug kingpins and use them to put more cops on the streets." New York City Police Commissioner Howard Safir invoked deterence when he said, "We believe that ... the threat of civil forfeiture and the possibility of losing one's car, have served to reduce the number of motorists who are willing to take the chance of being caught driving drunk." On the other hand, a civil liberties group has filed suit challenging the legality and constitutionality of the New York City program. Citing some of the same constitutional concerns, the House passed a Bill that would drastically curtail the federal operation of the law.
--more--
http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/forfeiture/
Seize the corporation's assets before they go to trial. That's the way its done for suspected drug dealers and drunk drivers.
...then why can't the Forfeiture and Seizure Act be enforced? It is for "the war on drugs," and now drunk drivers, so why not for criminal bankers and brokers?
Forfeiture, the government seizure of property connected to illegal activity, has been a major weapon in the Federal government's "war on drugs" since the mid-eighties. Two recent developments, however, have called attention to the darker side of this practice: a decision by New York City's Mayor, Rudolph Guiliani, to deploy forfeiture against drunk drivers, and a House-approved bill that would, if signed into law, drastically narrow the scope of the federal forfeiture statutes. Forfeiture is a potent deterent, as well as a revenue source on which law enforcement has grown increasingly dependent. However, it brings with it far fewer procedural safeguards than the criminal law.
In the words of former President George Bush, "<a>sset forfeiture laws allow <the government> to take the ill-gotten gains of drug kingpins and use them to put more cops on the streets." New York City Police Commissioner Howard Safir invoked deterence when he said, "We believe that ... the threat of civil forfeiture and the possibility of losing one's car, have served to reduce the number of motorists who are willing to take the chance of being caught driving drunk." On the other hand, a civil liberties group has filed suit challenging the legality and constitutionality of the New York City program. Citing some of the same constitutional concerns, the House passed a Bill that would drastically curtail the federal operation of the law.
--more--
http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/forfeiture/
Seize the corporation's assets before they go to trial. That's the way its done for suspected drug dealers and drunk drivers.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
85 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
It appears that Spain is on the verge of doing something Obama refuses to do [View all]
joelz
Jul 2012
OP
The people alive in Spain have access to history like the people alive in the U.S.
valerief
Jul 2012
#10
The people in Spain aren't older than the people in the U.S. History books are available to people
valerief
Jul 2012
#16
The banksters in this country will only be put in prison when a sufficient number of the
AnotherMcIntosh
Jul 2012
#3
I find it incredible that we are just to cheer people going to jail on no charge or evidence
treestar
Jul 2012
#32
The evidence has been explicitly detailed in those books, documentaries, on web sites, in journals..
girl gone mad
Jul 2012
#63
Your assertion is that the President has nothing to do with the Department of Justice?
Marr
Jul 2012
#84
And what are the charges? Being greedy assholes? It may be immoral, but is it a crime?
Tarheel_Dem
Jul 2012
#60
Nice quote, but is that where it ends? Do you know for sure that there are no investigations?
Tarheel_Dem
Jul 2012
#64
Oh, so it's the size now. I see. Doesn't matter that folks have actually "gone to prison".....
Tarheel_Dem
Jul 2012
#67
Can you tell me where this issue is "polling"? And where does it fall in terms of importance to....
Tarheel_Dem
Jul 2012
#71
So when challenged on your regurgitated talking points, your response is.....
Tarheel_Dem
Jul 2012
#74
So do you think that Romney is going to put them in jail? Just curious... n/t
progressivebydesign
Jul 2012
#68