this post was submitted on 27 Dec 2024
75 points (97.5% liked)

Politics

373 readers
192 users here now

For civil discussion of US politics. Be excellent to each other.

Rule 1: Posts have the following requirements:
▪️ Post articles about the US only

▪️ Title must match the article headline

▪️ Recent (Past 30 Days)

▪️ No Screenshots/links to other social media sites or link shorteners

Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. One or two small paragraphs are okay.

Rule 3: Articles based on opinion (unless clearly marked and from a serious publication-No Fox News or equal), misinformation or propaganda will be removed.

Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, will be removed.

Rule 5: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a jerk. It’s not acceptable to say another user is a jerk. Cussing is fine.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.

USAfacts.org

The Alt-Right Playbook

Media owners, CEOs and/or board members

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
kersploosh@sh.itjust.works
pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
75
Justice Department suspends DEA's controversial asset-forfeiture program targeting airline travelers (www.newschannel5.com)
submitted 1 week ago by pelespirit@sh.itjust.works to c/politics@sh.itjust.works
15 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The practice includes DEA special agents or task force officers approaching individuals at airports and then asking for consent to search the individual’s belongings.

The DOJ's move comes four years after Scripps News Tampa Investigative Reporter Kylie McGivern highlighted the practice of civil asset forfeiture at airports by the DEA.

Civil asset forfeiture allows federal agencies to seize cash and other property suspected of being involved in a crime, even if charges are never filed against the owner.

The Institute for Justice called the move a "pretty significant change."

"It means that air travelers across the United States, at all domestic airports, will not be subjected to these 'consensual encounter' interrogations by DEA," said Dan Alban, senior attorney for the Institute for Justice.

top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 26 points 1 week ago (1 children)

At an airport. Consent does not exist in high security areas. What do people think happens if they refuse? Not in a rhetorical sense, but what do they actually think the consequences of a refusal will be?

This is no difference than a gang asking politely for payment and then hand waiving any concerns, it was a request! They could have refused!

The expectation is punishment for refusal.

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I didn't even know this was a thing. I never carry cash because everything works throughout the US. It's the international travelers that probably get stopped, right? That's even worse because they may not know the laws or have anyone to ask or tell.

[–] Jiggle_Physics@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 week ago

The Las Vegas tourism board literally warns big players that when traveling to LV with large amounts of cash, avoid x states, do not fly, keep the money in a locked box, and do not answer any police questions about it, but primarily that they will have specific facilities in the casinos to allow large cash withdrawals and will work with your bank to claim the money within their terms, after they have made sure you have the funds to be withdrawn. then front you the cash.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

suspends asset-forfeiture

Yay!

targeting airline travelers

Oh, right. Only for richer people.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Rich people aren't the only people who fly.

[–] Eheran@lemmy.world -4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Next time it will be everyone with a car, then a bike, then food. No problem, only rich people, right?

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 7 points 1 week ago

... for the next three weeks or so.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 week ago

"Controversial" universally seems to mean "the worst sort of bullshit imaginable, but let's be polite for some reason."

This is theft.

The entire concept is theft. They just take shit... and go fuck yourself. I'm aware of the excuses and they don't matter because they are plainly just excuses. Inanimate objects can't be plaintiffs and even if they were they'd be presumed innocent.

Even the chosen name for this bullshit is an intolerable lie.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Why would anyone say yes to such a request?

[–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

People who haven't done anything wrong and don't want to miss their flight through arguing with the authorities would probably comply. They know there's no drugs in their luggage, it's the DEA.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You should never consent to unlawful searches. It doesn't matter if you've done anything wrong. They're looking for things to arrest you for, or things to steal, or someone to plant evidence on. They're definitely not trying to protect you, that's for sure.

[–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I'm not saying they should, I was answering the question about why some people did. The DEA clearly uses the pressure people feel not to miss their flight.

[–] Eheran@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Who would say no?

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

People who don't want strangers who are known for thievery and entrapment snooping around in their personal belongings?

[–] Eheran@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

Very odd then that I have never ever seen anyone say no to anything at an airport.