Recently, Larry Dighera posted:

On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 20:35:49 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote in

Recently, Larry Dighera posted:

[...] I doubt
that the Constitution would permit prosecuting people for merely
being members of the listed terrorist organizations alone.

You are talking about a State that just recently deported an Imam
who, on his application for citizenship didn't declare his
affiliations with a group that *wasn't* on a terrorist watch list at
the time.

On what grounds did the state of Ohio manage to do that?

The State probably just greased the wheels for INS or some Federal agency.
If you are curious about the case, here's a start:

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchas...alestinian.php

Not being a lawyer, I could only watch as events unfolded. Interestingly,
many of the reports of this are inaccurate (no surprise), for example, it
is frequently reported that he was deported to Jordan and then the
Palestinian Territories. He never made it there, and for a few days, no
one knew where he was.

I was thinking, that the law may be intended to be used similarly to
the way Martha Stewart was found guilty of lying to federal
prosecutes. They didn't find her guilty of SEC violations, IIRC.

Perhaps so, but it is still an absurdity. There are plenty of laws
covering any specific activity that winds up being terrorist in nature,
and a finding that someone lied on the form is meaningless unless there is
proof that they were involved in those activities *prior* to signing the
form.

As if that
wasn't bad enough, instead of winding up in the Palestinian
territories to where he was deported, he is being detained by
Isreal, where he was delivered.

How did that happen?

His family (American citizens) would like to know.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...=1167467692943

So, yes, Ohio prosecutes people for far less than merely being
members of listed terrorist organizations.

I don't think it's a crime to be a member of a listed terrorist
organization, is it? At least, pre Patriot Act, I doubt it was.

I suspect that it depends on who you tick off.

On a lesser note, this State also increased the licensing tax on GA
planes to the same amount as commercial aircraft.

Did that change in rate result in an increase in licensing fees for
the typical Cessna 172 owners? If so, by about how much?

Yes. The rate went from about $25/yr. to $100/yr., about the same as for a
Citation as I understand it.

They do these things to pilots
because there aren't enough of us to create a political problem for
them.

They get away with it, because people would rather pay than defend
their rights, just like traffic citations.

What "rights" do we have against unreasonable taxation? The last time we
tried to get out from under such things, we wound up dumping tea and
battling the government for years. We may have the right to do that again,
but do we have the force to pull it off?

I agree with C J on the motivations behind this law, and the only
practical benefit to its existance.


I have no knowledge of Ohio state politics. If you and Christopher
are correct, it is a sad comment on those governing Ohio.

It is a source of constant amazement and disappointment to me.

All that aside, because the new Ohio law fails to apply similar
requirements to the other vehicles it licenses (boats, automobiles,
...), it smacks of selective enforcement, and may possible be
challenged on that ground:
http://www.moralityinmedia.org/nolc/...nforcement.htm

That looks like a long shot to me, as it appears to cover only the
selective enforcement of a single law across a population. Even then, the
"Rational Relation test" seems to negate its intention to some degree.

Neil