Many, many people have noted with dismay the stunning ease with which our elected representatives in Washington have agreed to wipe away decades of established law on basic rights of U.S. citizens, as well as centuries of established human rights.

Of course, this isn't simply a national/federal issue -- we have many such challenges across the U.S. One of the most egregious is this travesty being proposed here in Ohio -- to allow creation of a list of ACCUSED sexually oriented criminals, to which names can be added WITHOUT due process, the piddly little requirement of a CONVICTION in a COURT OF LAW, or any process to expunge names from the record.

This free link will be active for only about two weeks before it becomes a "paid archive":

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060925/NEWS01/609250356/-1/back01

Here are the first couple of lines from the story:

- - - - - - -

Sex-abuse list grows

No trial necessary, no statute of limitations

BY SHARON COOLIDGE | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITER

People who have never even been charged with a sex offense could end up on a public registry of sex offenders.

That new Ohio law - the only one in the nation - is being questioned by civil liberty groups and even the victim's rights group that spurred its creation.

But state legislators and county prosecutors say the registry, which is similar to a Megan's Law database of convicted sex offenders, is a way to protect the public.

The problem with the civil registry, the groups say, is that, unlike under Megan's Law, the people listed would never have been criminally charged. For the civil registry, it will be up to a judge to decide whether the crime likely occurred.

- - - - - - -

Given the state of things in Ohio, our General Assembly is likely to pass this monstrosity. (No, I'm NOT "defending rights of sex offenders" -- I'm defending the rule of law, the right to due process, and so forth.) It's another sign of the times -- as Ben Franklin reportedly said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

...but this scenario describing a "perfect storm" of continued illegalities, followed by a Democratic takeover of one or both houses of Congress, and culminating in actual oversight and investigation (or perhaps, dare we hope, with IMPEACHMENT???) is a tad optimistic.

The weakest link in that chain of events is the necessary step of a takeover of at least one-half of Congress -- preferably the House, I suppose. Who has confidence in all the new, reportedly unreliable and evidently "hackable" electronic voting procedures in place across the country? I have no doubt that current polls are accurate when indicating anti-GOP voter sentiment now. Given reports like Princeton's demonstration of how easy it is to hack into Diebold systems, though, who can trust that everyone's vote will be counted properly?

After all, Diebold executives are actually ON RECORD pledging to deliver for Bush and the Republicans! Ohio, the home of Diebold, would seem once again to be Ground Zero for new voting procedures this year -- all the polls are pointing to a possible Democratic sweep of major state offices, plus the U.S. Senate and scattered House seats. Will this happen? ("Will this be ALLOWED to happen?" might be a better way to word that question.)

...to conduct a "Global War on Terrorism", succeed in Iraq and Afghanistan, promote democracy and human rights across the world, etc., while maintaining traditional American concepts of the due process of law, aversion to torture, and the basic concept that this is a nation of laws, with ALL of us (including the President) subject to those laws?

Is it REALLY that radical? That impossible? That unwise and self-destructive?

It is both funny and sad to ponder exactly the level of right-wing vitriol to which we'd have been subjected had Bill Clinton tried one-tenth of the power grab Bush and his acolytes have successfully accomplished. Of course, Bill was the devil incarnate, while Dubya is evidently on the very opposite end of THAT spectrum -- totally trustworthy and deserving of such breathtaking power...

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."

Bush was right in observing that the perception of firm beliefs (and we can debate for a long time about what has been firm, versus what's been Bush "flip-flopping") has a lot going for it -- you can't beat something with nothing, as another old saying goes.

The rule of law, checks-and-balances, basic human rights, and so forth seem like bedrock American values that can certainly be the basis on which a loyal opposition can prove its worth, indeed the necessity to elect its candidates to office. Just throw your minds back to all the stuff we learned, and presumably believe, after government & civics classes in high school -- how much of current Washington behavior gibes with THAT? Not much, I'm afraid.

To answer Craig234, while (thankfully) I'm no lawyer, you seem to be talking about ex post facto laws. I believe this prohibition relates more to making an act illegal or subject to greater punishment retroactively, which is evidently unconstitutional (U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Sections 9 & 10). Whether this includes going the opposite direction -- making something legal, or reducing/removing punishment after the fact -- may not be so clear.

After all, Congress is continually threatening to remove jurisdiction of federal courts in various matters, and preventing anyone who hasn't already challenged detention, etc. from filing new cases. The law appears to be pretty malleable in this regard.

In addition, consider efforts to impose new reporting or residency requirements on sexual offenders, long after conviction and release from prison. Courts have certainly not clearly voided those "ex post facto" provisions, so we can't be sure of other such changes in the law.