Coming Soon to Defiance, Ohio
I’m going to allow this story to speak for itself. Bill Would Allow Arrests For No Reason In Public Place.
Cleveland — A bill on Gov. Bob Taft’s desk right now is drawing a lot of criticism, NewsChannel5 reported.
One state representative said it resembles Gestapo-style tactics of government, and there could be changes coming on the streets of Ohio’s small towns and big cities.
The Ohio Patriot Act has made it to Taft’s desk, and with the stroke of a pen, it would most likely become the toughest terrorism bill in the country. The lengthy piece of legislation would let police arrest people in public places who will not give their names, address and birth dates, even if they are not doing anything wrong.
WEWS reported it would also pave the way for everyone entering critical transportation sites such as, train stations, airports and bus stations to show ID.
“It brings us frighteningly close to a show me your papers society,” said Carrie Davis of the ACLU, which opposes the Ohio Patriot Act.
There are many others who oppose the bill as well.
“The variety of people who opposed to this is not just a group of the usual suspects. We have people far right to the left opposing the bill who think it is a bad idea,” said Al McGinty, NewsChannel5’s terrorism expert.
McGinty said he isn’t sure the law would do what it’s intended to do.
“I think anything we do to enhance security and give power to protect the public to police officers is a good idea,” he said. “It is a good law in the wrong direction.”
Gov. Bob Taft will make the ultimate decision on whether to sign the bill.
WEWS was told that Taft is expected to sign the bill into law, but legal experts expect that it will be challenged in courts.
6 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
What the hell? At the risk of sounding like some redneck, I thought we lived in America.
That’s highly disturbing that something like that could get so far. I think we’re watched more than enough as it is.
But I read too much science fiction.
Comment by Heather — Thursday, 22 December 2005 @ 11:22 am
Dammit. This is a regular problem. I should’ve logged in as myself before commenting. Above comment was Mel B.
Comment by Mel B. — Thursday, 22 December 2005 @ 11:25 am
Todd and Dawn do the same thing all the time, if you haven’t noticed. I can always change your comment to reflect that it was you who wrote it. Just shoot me an email when it happens next time.
I wonder if there is a plugin that would allow people to edit their own comments, and only their comments, after publishing them. That would be extremely useful. I’ll have to look into it.
Comment by Matthew — Thursday, 22 December 2005 @ 12:19 pm
My inclination is to say that even if Taft approves this bill, it will be struck down in court. But who knows. I remarked in a previous post that judging by the number of people who call in to Limbaugh and other talk shows in order to gush about how they would gladly submit to illegal searches beause they have nothing to hide…well, it makes you wonder if Ohio couldn’t get away with a fascist piece of legislation like this.
Comment by Matthew — Thursday, 22 December 2005 @ 12:22 pm
This is just profoundly disturbing. I think I’ll stay away from the Land of Cleves for awhile. What’s next? Random fingerprinting?
Comment by shel — Thursday, 22 December 2005 @ 7:10 pm
In New York, the police are disguising themselves as “agitators” and mixing with the anti-war protests in order to spy on them. In some cases, they videotape protestors.
I think it’s a matter of time before we all are required to carry a national ID. Maybe it will be biometric based (fingerprints). A moderate AM talk show host in Washington, Chris Core, was talking about this on my drive home tonight. Topic of discussion: “what liberties are you willing to give up in the name of security?” One of his liberties he would surrender was the freedom of movement. He said he would carry a national ID that he would be required to present to law enforcement on demand.
Others called in saying they would give up basically every right guaranteed in the Constitution: freedom of speech (one guy said no one should be allowed to criticize the government in a time of war); right to privacy; freedom from unlawful search and seizure (one guy said the police could come search his house whenever they felt like it).
Americans seem ready for the police state. I think one more terrorist attack and the calls for “security” will finally completely drown out those of us saying “No! Give us liberty, or give us death.”
Comment by Matthew — Thursday, 22 December 2005 @ 11:56 pm