I'm not aware of any instances where it was used to fight crime. Seriously, not one.

shrug Several news orgs point to a DoJ study that finds that 20% of those hit by asset forfeiture end up charged with one or more crimes.

I agree that forfeiture is a tool that is currently widely abused. Its use should be tightly constrained, if not entirely eliminated. However, I cannot agree that forfeiture has never been used to fight crime. Much like it's pretty clear that the NSA's dragnet has swept up evidence of at least one credible terror plot[0], it's pretty clear that at least one instance of forfeiture use was in the service of crime elimination or punishment.

[0] Before you downvote, understand my stance. The NSA dragnet is reprehensible and clearly dangerous to the integrity of the Republic. However, the dragnet is so wide that it can't help but catch some of what the NSA is looking for. See what I'm getting at?

I see what you're getting at.

But I also am convinced that, would you present this on public television or anything with a similar broad distribution, you'd persuade many people to support civil forfeiture (or the NSA dragnet), because it's obviously effective against crime!

In the general public, only a minority seems to still be interested that means are somehow proportionate to the ends. THINK OF THE CHILDREN! INCARCERATE EVERYONE!

You're making an argument that I don't disagree with and that also doesn't address anything in my comment. :)

I was making a narrow statement that addressed MCRed's comment. My footnote was presented to make my position abundantly clear to all who would read my comment.

What was the one credible plot? I have only ever heard of plots initiated by undercover FBI agents, often involving mentally ill patsies.

Okay. This is is a derail, but whatever. My claim is:

1) Pretty much every telecom system in the world uses the Internet to transmit their data stream at some point.

2) The NSA (whether through Agency-installed taps or data sharing agreements with others) has the ability to intercept all of the data that hits the Internet. Of the data that they intercept, they almost certainly retain every not-completely-useless bit.

3) Statistically speaking, someone involved in a credible terror plot has had that communication data cross the Internet. People aren't that good at OPSEC. Shit, even Army officers fuck OPSEC up from time to time.

4) 1, 2, and 3 mean that somewhere in NSA's vast data warehouse is evidence of a credible terror plot.

Note that I don't claim: "The NSA has learned of at least one credible terror plot using the data that they have obtained through their dragnet.". Indeed, if a plot had been stopped by data from the dragnet programs, I would expect that fact to be trumpeted from the rooftops. :)

They're drowning in data. They can't analyze it all. Pervasive full-take programs are bad for reasons beyond the obvious civil liberty ones.

Then you['re not trying. Read a legal journal, you'll see plenty of legitimate uses documented in court reports. I have no problem with it when agents seize cash that's found along with a pile of drugs or illegal weapons (a common enough occurrence in any major port city), but those are cases where you have very obvious cause to suspect criminal activity even if the criminals have fled.