You show me 100 people walking around with a million bucks. Heck you show me TEN people with a million dollars in cash - who are not drug runners.
And you think the government is wrong to be suspicious??
Come on. Be honest here. If you think “THAT to me is much more alarming than the possibility that some drug money will find its way back to Mexico”, then why not admit you think we should surrender in the WOD, and just go all Ron Paul regarding crime?
You know, things like "... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
It should go without saying that if the government cannot ESTABLISH that laws have been violated then it cannot seize property (including large amounts of cash). And suspicion or even "common sense" is not an adequate burden of proof.
The funny thing is you will call me a Ron Paul Losertarian on this thread while others will call me a statist for my position that we still need to enforce our drug laws.
Suspicious, sure.
Proof?
I guess that’s where your reasoning falls apart.
The WO(S)D is a complete failure.
You use the word “surrender”, but really it’s just a matter of STOPPING the goddamned thing.
What if it's $5,000 instead of a million? What if it's $10,000? What if it is $25,000? How about $60,000? What about $150,000? At what point does the amount of cash money being carried demonstrate that it is drugs? And who gets to make that call? Just because I don't want to "wave the white flag" in the war on drugs does not mean that I am as willing as you apparently are to wave the white flag in the continuing war to preserve our liberty. May your chains rest lightly upon your shoulders.
Whether the government is right or wrong to be suspicious, my problem is with the notion that the government has the authority to seize property just because they are suspicious.
I'm still waiting for your answer regarding what sum of money you are willing to accept as a maximum threshold beyond which the government can simply seize at will? And who in government has your approval to adjust that threshold downward?
“And you think the government is wrong to be suspicious??”
It’s perfectly legitimate for the government to be suspicious in a case like this. And if they had an actual case, they should have charged him with a crime and held one of those quaint “trial” things they used to have to go through before seizing this guy’s money.
Since they didn’t see fit to file charges, he should get his money back. Otherwise we all know it’s plunder.