Posted on 12/20/2004 7:41:58 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
A bipartisan group of senators, representatives, and members of the 9/11 Commission flanked President Bush Friday at his signing of sweeping intelligence reform legislation. But an equally diverse collection of citizens' groups criticized what they saw as the potential for government oppression and invasions of privacy codified in the new law.
President Bush called the new law, "the most dramatic reform of our nation's intelligence capabilities since President Harry S. Truman signed the National Security Act of 1947.
"Under this new law, our vast intelligence enterprise will become more unified, coordinated and effective," Bush said. "It will enable us to better do our duty, which is to protect the American people."
But critics of the bill -- liberal, conservative and libertarian -- questioned one provision they said could greatly expand the government's ability to monitor and limit the freedoms of law-abiding citizens.
At issue is Section 1027 of Subtitle B of the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004, entitled "Drivers Licenses and Personal Identification Cards."
That provision requires the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of Homeland Security to "establish minimum standards for driver's licenses or personal identification cards issued by a State" within 18 months after the enactment of the law. Licenses and photo IDs from states that fail to comply with the standards would not be accepted by the federal government for any purpose, including getting past airport security, entering a federal building or even claiming certified mail.
Peter Gadiel of 9/11 Families for a Secure America supported the provision. He and other survivors of those killed in the terrorist attacks agreed with the Kean (9/11) Commission's conclusion that the standardization of driver's licenses will make it more difficult for terrorists to again successfully attack on U.S. soil.
"The 9/11 Commission says it in black and white on page 390 [of its report] that the federal government should set standards for driver's licenses," Gadiel recently told reporters.
Proponents of Section 1027 said requiring uniform, basic information on driver's licenses was not the same as creating a national ID card issued by the federal government. But Jim Babka - president of DownsizeDC.org, a citizens' group that lobbies Congress to reduce the size of the federal government - disagreed.
"When you standardize everything, when the federal government sets all the rules and collects all the names in a federal database, it doesn't matter what entity actually hands you your card," Babka argued, "you've got a national ID card."
High potential for abuse, fraud, disclosures and mistakes
Babka warned that a national ID card system would have an inherently high potential for abuse, in part because the new law designates appointed officials, rather than elected representatives, to set the standards.
"You need a driver's license to purchase a gun from a dealer, you need it to travel on any form of public transportation, you need it to get a job, you need it to open a checking account, to cash a check, to check into a hotel, to rent a car, and to purchase cigarettes or alcohol," Babka explained. "So, if the federal government can set the standards so high as to deny you a driver's license or a photo ID, it's effectively turned you into a non-person."
Section 1027 supporters defended the law and pointed to the legislative mandate that the standardization regulations, "shall include procedures and requirements to protect the privacy and civil and due process rights of individuals who apply for and hold driver's licenses and personal identification cards."
But Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, took no comfort in that alleged protection.
"When the government says they're concerned about my privacy after they've just said I have to have one of their cards, somehow, that's not very reassuring," Pratt said.
"I still have a Social Security card that says, 'Not for Use for Identification,'" Pratt added. "Anybody who thinks that they are going to stop where they are doesn't understand 'mission creep' in government."
George Getz, communications director for the Libertarian Party, concurred.
"When they passed the Social Security Act, they said, 'Oh, my gosh, this will never be used for identification purposes,' and, who knows, maybe they meant it at the time," Getz speculated. "But that Social Security number has now, in effect, become a national ID number."
Babka said he believes even those who trust the government not to intentionally misuse the information collected in a national ID card database should still be concerned about the potential for highly personal information to be improperly disclosed.
"The danger of having this stuff collected on a list, especially a highly centralized list," Babka continued, "is that it will be much easier for someone to 'accidentally' end up with information that you wouldn't want getting out, that you wouldn't want your neighbors, your family or your friends to know about."
Laura Murphy of the American Civil Liberties Union said she fears mandating a uniform national ID standard could actually make it easier for terrorists to create their own fake identification documents and steal others' information.
"There's a problem with counterfeiting in this country and stealing someone's identity is a huge problem," Murphy told CNN/FN's Lou Dobbs. "And so if we can't even protect the $20 bill, how in the heck are we going to protect a national ID card?"
"This is not a way to reduce terrorism, since terrorists will always find a way to create fake identities," Getz said, echoing Murphy's comments. "That's exactly what happened with the 9/11 hijackers."
Pratt pointed out another area of concern: Incorrect data could be accidentally or intentionally associated with an honest citizen's record in a national ID database. He recalled an incident in which security officials prevented Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) from boarding a plane because his name was mistakenly placed on a "no-fly list."
"He was able to call the head of the appropriate agency, the Transportation Security Administration, and tell them to get his record straightened out," Pratt said. "Now, the rest of us may be able to finally buy the gun or get on the plane, but they won't clean up the data because the bureaucrats don't care.
"They're treating us as if we were a bunch of cattle to have a brand on our butt and a tag in our ear," Pratt concluded, "so that the government can know where we are at all times."
Law targets 'innocent' citizens, ignores terrorists, illegal aliens
Getz said the flaws with the legislation go even deeper than its potential for abuse, fraud, unintentional disclosures of personal information or mistakes. The law simply regulates the wrong people, he charged.
"Only the innocent will have to submit to this kind of government surveillance scheme, and that's exactly what's wrong with it," Getz said. "It targets the innocent and it certainly won't inconvenience terrorists one bit."
Babka said the issue comes down to one of simple statistics.
"Most of the people reading this are not terrorists. I'm not a terrorist and 99.99 percent of the population aren't terrorist[s]," Babka said. "But, this will affect 99.99 percent of the population.
"This is too much," Babka concluded, "this is overkill."
I find it distrubing that they felt it was more of a neccessity to track legal Americans more closely than it was to deny illegals the ablity to get a drivers license at all.
These elected officials do not work for us, they work for themselves.
The liberals get snookered, we get screwed. Not exactly a fair trade-off.
Sounds like a no-brainer to me. Having "minimal standards for driver's licenes or personal identification cards issued by a State" could make voter fraud harder for the Democrats, though.
"Driver's License Rules in Intel Law Spark Outrage"
Sounds good.
This simply makes fake stuff stand out like a sore thumb.
Any suprises? None at all. The incompetent Washington government opened our borders, and they remain open. At the same time they MUST "show" the American public they are doing something about illegal immigration which continues to be supported.
First, the idea of ANY ILLEGAL IN THIS COUNTRY without being identified as such is a travesty against the people of the USA and their security. Second, UNCONTROLLED ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION must be stopped at all costs. Maybe this is a first step to getting control OVER WHO CROSSES OUR BORDERS ... let's give it a chance and see what our fine POLITICIANS in Washington come up with. Will it be effective, or just another "yank-job" on the American public???
Washington, as a whole, over the years, has ignored our borders, our soverignty, our security, the significance of U.S. citizenship, and everything needed to protect those precious freedoms. IT IS THEIR FREAKIN' JOB TO CLEAN UP THE MESS THEY CREATED!!!! HOLD THEM ACCOUNTALBE!!!
If an illegal can get a legitimate license it's not exactly fake now is it?
The terrorists that hijacked the planes obtained drivers licenses with the help of an illegal alien. They then used those licenses and the process to obtain more for the others.
Nothing, and I mean NOTHING in the supposed intelligence bill closes that loophole.
something along a similar strategy: Missouri has long had a law on the books that allows the passenger in a car to have open alcohol - as long as the driver does not have open alcohol. The Feds told Missouri that as long as that law stays on the books, then we will withold "Highway Funds" (money needed to repair roads etc.).. Budweiser lobbied hard and the law stayed on the books - and Missouri lost their Highway funds.
Conclusion: The Feds are on firm ground if they want to withold $$ because states refuse to follow minimum standards when issueing state IDs.
An illegal alien was involved to the extent that he pointed the hijackers to a DMV employee.
To much stuff is released "accidentaly" from medical offices and government offices today, but there is a remedy for that, sue their pants off.
That said, the government already has this information for most citizens, now they have the means to impel non-citizens to fess up too. The likely result of this is a decrease in illegal immigration because the illegals hate ending up on data bases. Also, maybe it will be used effectively to nab terrorists and not be used in an unconstitutional manner like setting up national check points. Furthermore, haveing the data in a centralized place makes it far more likely that it will be used to verify status at airports and ports and nail people who are not following the rules or trying to slip into the country via these routes.
Hillary did it and nobody's bitching.
Now forgers will need only meet a single standard rather than 50 different ones.
Your other issue was the one of providing drivers licenses to illegals.
This piece of legislation was probably not the best vehicle for correcting problems in that area.
First of all, the enforcement body is not part of the national intelligence apparatus.
Secondly, it's only tangentially related to immigration.
Thirdly, even trying to go at the issue head on does nothing to resolve the driver's license question. That's because anybody can get what's called an International Driver's License anywhere, and it's good for a period of use in the United States. See: http://www.idl-international.com/ for more information.
What we must do first is repudiate the portion of the treaty arrangements we have with the United Nations (and others) concerning these international drivers licenses.
Should be a simple matter, eh?!
An illegal rode in the van with them TO the DMV and went inside with them to assist with the paperwork. He was then paid after they received their licenses.
Show me where in the intelligence bill this is addressed.
All hail the Security State.
Read my tag line. Will you be sending your kids to fight and possibly die for Freedom Lite?
Not me. I pay enough in taxes. Money buys safety and prosperity. But neither are worth fighting for.
Besides, you have plenty of native born folks who would have been willing to do the exact same job for money.
The illegal in this case was gumbahs with an American citizen on the inside who worked for DMV. He didn't have to be an illegal.
We who live in Virginia addressed the issue through our courts and the state legislature. Unfortunately we also elected a Corporatist, Mark Warner as Governor, and all he wanted to do was raise taxes to try out risky social engineering schemes so we may not have all the enforcement we need.
What I'd like to know is will your proposal result in Virginia not being able to keep criminals out of the DMV? With already weak administration in the hands of Corporatists, and insertion of the CIA and DOD Intelligence administrator in the mix, do you really think we can stop even crazier stuff?
Because the security bill was a direct response to the recommendations of the 9/11 commission.
If they can address border security in the bill then they can address interior security as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.