Ohio soon to become police state...

[rexcat]

It was reported in the Cincinnati Enquirer Monday June 13, 2005 that the Ohio legislature is about to pass the "Ohio Patriot Act." Here are the bills highlights (or low points depending on your political view):
1. Bar anyone from getting a driver's license if they admit giving money to organizations on the federal "terrorist exclusion list."
2. Expand the homeland security duties of the state Department of Public Safety.
3. Require the state director of public safety to develop a questionnaire to identify potential terrorists during license renewals.
4. Deny drivers licenses to anyone admitting to providing material assistance to a terrorist organization.
5. Bar any municipality form enacting an ordinance, policy or resolution that would "materially hinder or prevent" compliance with the USA Patriot Act. The bill was revised to allow resolutions criticizing the act.
6. Expand the definition of "corrupt activity" to include terrorism-related offenses, including animal and ecological destruction. Makes money laundering in support of terrorism a felony.
7. Requiring anyone entering an airport, train station, port or "other critical infrastructure site" to show identification when asked by law enforcement. The bill says they can be detained indefinitely to prevent them from entering, the critical site.

This is such a draconian law. I will have to assume that my 9 year old twins will have to get photo id's. I would not them detained indefinitely by the fascists police in this state! In retrospect this "law" does not surprise me since the repuke fascists run this f--king state.

[DrDebug]

1. You are either with us or you can't drive LOL n/t

[rexcat]

4. I will not be able to get an Ohio drivers license

when mine is up for renewal. I pay Ohio state taxes and US Federal taxes. Since I consider both the State of Ohio and the federal government terrrorists states I will have to answer the questions with a "yes."

[aeolian]

2. "a questionnaire to identify potential terrorists during license renewals"

:rofl:

What do you do at a stop sign?

a) come to a full and complete stop
b) detonate your explosives
c) contemplate the Jihad
d) turn left

[Roland99]

15. heh heh

And refuse licenses to those who "admit" to supporting terrorist groups?

Wow...that'll result in gobs of arrests from on-the-spot confessions.



:sarcasm:

[skylarmae]

3. those of us who lived thru the Kent State days think its been

a police state for a loooonnggg time...Wonder just how close the new law is structured to the existing law. ?????

[rexcat]

8. Good point...

Sad to say the Ohio National Gaurd and Gov. Rhodes got away with murder at Kent State. This new law is up there with Kent State!

[Kolesar]

5. Cities have passed laws directing police not to follow US Patriot Act

Here is another example of the hypocritical GOPukes taking power away from the local governments. Those brownshirts ran on a platform of local control.

[Deep13]

6. Okay, let's see...

1.Probably unconstitutional, 14th Amendment,
2.unnecessary, more opportunities for cronyism,
3.unconstitutional, 4th Amendment,
4.unnecessary, such people would subject to Federal prosecution anyway,
5.unconstitutional under the home-rule provision of the Ohio constitution
6.probably a good idea
7.unconstitutional, 4th Amendment, privileges and immunities clauses of the 5th & 14th Amendments.

[rexcat]

9. The few good points that the bill has is already...

codified at the Federal level, so what is the point, double jeopardy?

[Deep13]

13. No idea, ...

... it is not like the state has nothing else to do. Our educational system is still on the table with barely a pulse and we have the worst air pollution in the nation.

As a technical matter, the prohibition on double jeopardy applies only to a specific prosecuting sovereign entity. An aquital at the Federal level does not bar the state from pursuing the exact same case under state law.

[rexcat]

16. I understand the legal point...

but I still consider it double-jeopardy. So you are acquitted in Federal Court but then you have to go to State court to fight the charges. Considering the attitude of the majority of Ohioans you would probably be convicted in Ohio even if you were acquitted in the Federal system. It is a win-win for the Feds and the state!

[getmeouttahere]

7. One question is....

how they will define an organization as terrorist. They could go almost anywhere with this. Especially when you consider that the war on terror is so open ended, so too could be the definition of a terrorist organization.

[rexcat]

12. Another point here is what would be considered an

infrastructure? I think the judiciary could expand the list to anywhere in the state. The police will be able to stop anyone anywhere for any reason and ask for ID.

[Ravenseye]

10. detained indefinately?

Seriously? So if I go to the Cleveland airport to pick up a relative and forget my drivers liscence at home and they don't like my look they can lock me up forever with no trial or anytyhing? I just go to the airport and dissapear?

Ok remind me never to go to Ohio again.

[Deep13]

14. Never go to Ohio again.

just a reminder

[SixStrings]

11. Okay.

You can't have tyranny with out foot soldiers. I've always wondered how anyone can uphold laws like these. It's one thing to have a corrupt, evil leader , but it's something entirely different when people follow and uphold their orders and laws.

What happened to dissent? This is why I have zero compassion for any soldier, contractor, etc. that get's killed or injured in Iraq. Just fucking say 'no'. 'I will not murder innocent people'. That wasn't so hard. Whatever happened to taking a principled stand? Is the US population so brainwashed that keeping 'order' is more important than speaking out? If I was tapped to go and fight in an unjust war, guess what? - No fucking way am I going. It's enablers like your soldiers that allow Bush and his cabal to rob, rape and pillage the weak and defenseless of this world.
In my eyes thay are just as guilty as men who would devise such laws and wars.
Hitler did not individually murder 6-10 million people. It was the sheep who could not think for themselves.

[Joyce78]

17. Items 1 and 4

My license is due for renewal here in the Rhineland in November 2005. Should I start scraping my DU bumpersticker off now? I suppose I should also get rid of the little star next to my name ... don't want the stormtroopers hauling me away for contributing to a terrorist bunch!!

[Deep13]

18. Gave tons of money to Kerry, DNC.

Guess I had better get that bicycle fixed.

[Deep13]

19. Self-Delete

[gizmonic]

20. Me, too

Also, have given $$ to PETA.

I'll send y'all a postcard from Gitmo!

[slaveplanet]

21. read it and weep

1. What is terrorism?

The trouble starts with the definition of an "act of terrorism," inserted into the Ohio Revised Code by S.B. 184 in 2002 (Sec. 2909.21). This new law expanded the definition well beyond common use and beyond federal statutes.

Here is the definition the U.S. State Department uses for its yearly report on terrorism:

premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents" (U.S. Code, Title 22, Chapter 38, § 2656f. (d) (2))

Another federal definition is the basis for the U.S. Department of State Terrorist Exclusion List. It is longer, but is similarly limited to acts that are commonly understood to be terrorism (U.S. Code, Title 8, Chapter 38, § 1182).

Regardless of the merits of the above definitions, they illustrate what is wrong with the Ohio definition, which requires only a "specified offense" and a certain intentions.

-61623; Specified offenses include any violation of section 2909.04, which states, in part, "No person, purposely by any means. . . shall do any of the following: . . . (2) Interrupt or impair public transportation . . ."

-61623; The identified intentions are as vague and as broad as can be. For example, ORC Sec. 2909.21 (A)(3) refers to an intention to "affect the conduct of any government by the act that constitutes the offense."

This easily encompasses many acts of nonviolent civil disobedience. For example, in 1955, Rosa Parks "purposely" "interrupted public transportation" in Montgomery, Alabama to "affect the conduct of any government by the act that constitutes the offense."

When Gov. Bob Taft signed the new Ohio law on May 15, 2002, his office issued a press release saying, "Based on a similar law in New York, Senate Bill 184 creates a clear definition for acts of terrorism. . ." In fact, the New York definition is not similar; it is much more narrowly drawn (New York Consolidated Penal Laws, Article 490).


2. Money laundering

The current bill is built on the 2002 definition of terrorism. As a result, for example, the proposed section on money laundering is as absurd as the definition of terrorism. A bake sale to pay for the bus for the group that commits civil disobedience would be regarded as "money laundering in support of terrorism," (Sec. 2909.29).


3. Mandatory identification checks

In the bill as introduced, the mandatory identification provision applied to any "airport, train station, chemical plant, utility site, or any other terrorist sensitive site," (Sec. 2909.31) which, of course, could be anywhere in the state.

Now the provision has been changed to "in or near an airport, train station, port, or other critical transportation infrastructure site," which is not much narrower, and no clearer.

What is a "critical transportation infrastructure site"? In Ohio, there are 48,435 miles of Interstate, U.S., state and county routes, 14,930 bridges, 167 airports, 6,100 miles of mainline railroad track, 6,500 public grade crossings, 209 port terminals, 61,000 miles of rivers and streams, including 451 miles of the Ohio River, and 265 miles of Lake Erie shoreline.

Which of the above is not a "critical transportation infrastructure site"? How are citizens and law enforcement officials to figure out whether they are sufficiently "in or near" such a location for the new law to apply?

Further, the substitute bill retains the "similarly situated" language of the introduced bill -- "under circumstances in which the law enforcement officer is requiring identification all similarly situated people" -- as though the proposed identification requirement on one person could be justified by imposing it on others.

This provision of the bill expands the powers of the state when there is no showing that it is necessary. As Mr. Gamso testified, ". . .insofar as the officer has reasonable articulable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense, he has already the power to detain that person for brief investigation to resolve the suspicion."

Given this, there is no increased safety from terrorism offered in proposed Section 2909.31. Instead it would discourage law-abiding citizens from gathering in places where they might be subject to such treatment from law enforcement officials.