The law was intended for use against very well financed drug smugglers and their corrupt attorneys at a time when it was political suicide to be soft on crime. Predictably, prosecutors now use these and other laws well beyond original legislative intent. What is amazing to me is the silence and inaction of the judiciary.
It's a bit shocking really. You'd think some one in power in the US would say this is wrong and stop it. I have to admit I don't understand US politics - I don't think this happens in any other developed countries.
>>You'd think some one in power in the US would say this is wrong and stop it.
They would be no longer in power if they tried that. Their opponents would paint them as "soft on crime" and "pandering to criminals" and "hating our cops" and a bazillion other nonsense rhetoric.
That was true twenty years ago when the fallout of the lead epidemic[1] was being blamed on lax law enforcement. Today it's just hollow rhetoric that people use to try to scare politicians into funneling more money into irrational policies. The American people have no sympathy for corrupt law enforcement.
Not to even remotely defend this but in other countries the government just seizes privately held corporations and says it is illegal for them to be privately held - they just wait until the corporation is actually worth something first.
Like Alibaba in China - it is illegal for them to be held by outside entities, yet somehow the government allows them to skirt that rule, but I wonder for how long.
Yeah you kind of expect that in places like Russia or China but not really the US. I guess by saying 'developed' I was thinking of places with decent rule of law and the like. The top comment on the Economist seemed quite good.
One difference between China and the US is that the US Constitution has a 4th amendment that says the government won't do unreasonable searches and seizures. I'm not sure if China has an equivalent. (maybe it does, can anyone comment?). I know you're not defending the US, but I wanted to point out this possible distinction.
I read a translation of (some recent version of) the PRC constitution once. It didn't strike me as materially different from any modern democracy's, and included private property protections.
Reading it can be pretty surreal, but it's really just a reminder that laws of any sort are worthless unless there is a societal respect for the rule of law.
The main difference between China and the US in this instance is that the US is governed by the rule of (some very screwed up) law. The PRC is governed by a party, and the rule of law is not actually the final word.
Actually, legislation HAS been proposed, but it has been opposed by some in law enforcement. Part of the reason may be that this now provides a noticeable portion of the funding for law enforcement in certain jurisdictions.
It is amazing how every government entity has figured out that it is too annoying for them to do something with proper due process so they just carve out their own path to completely skip it - taking the "just try to stop us" approach instead.
Everything from local police all the way up to federal entities, some of which that should not even have legal powers that infinite.
