Posted on 10/12/2001 9:20:54 PM PDT by Pokey78
I disagree. What the govt can do FOR you can do TO you.
How the heck are the facial recognition systems we want to put in going to recognize you with out the new id system? You wont be able to walk any street unless your digitally mapped.
Next thing you know the damn military will take over the police in DC or something.
Then will we find out who killed Chandra Leavey?
I vote we also mark it with a big yellow star. Perhaps that will remind him why this is not such a good idea.
Get a clue, Al, the terrorists mostly had valid IDs. Man, this boils my grits. >:O(
Bullseye.
No such tradeoff is necessary. In Singapore, electronic road pricing has been in effect for years. You drive under a gantry, and an RF signal automatically zaps $1 off a cashcard plugged into a box on your inside windshield. You can buy the cashcard for cash (duh!) at any 7-11. Preserves total anonymity and gives you all the convenience you could want. Same deal works on public transport too.
And believe me, once you've traded off your privacy, you'll suffer a lot more inconvenience:
"Our records show you drove into Cambridge shortly before the time of the murder. You are required to come to the Harvard Police Station by noon tomorrow and explain your movements."
"optional"? Who's talking about "optional"? And what guarantee is there of no bait-and-switch (i.e. we all accept this "optional" idea for now, bowled over by Mr. Dershowitz's brilliant article, and then X years from now Sens. Feinstein and Clinton and Boxer co-sponsor a bill making it not-so "optional"....)
As a civil libertarian, I am instinctively skeptical of such tradeoffs. But ...
Why did I know that "But" was coming? These so-called "liberals" make me sick, they really do. They go around pretending to care about peoples' individual rights, but somehow they always fall down on the wrong side of them. Why is that?
It could be an effective tool for preventing terrorism,
How, exactly? I guess we'll have to take his word for it?
A national card would be uniform and difficult to forge or alter.
Of course, there is an infinite distance between "difficult" and "impossible". Things that are "difficult" (for, say, high school girls who want to get into a club) are FAR FROM "impossible" (for, say, well-funded terrorists). Thus destroying the whole rationale for the card in the first place. Well, one would think.
It would reduce the likelihood that someone could, intentionally or not, get lost in the cracks of multiple bureaucracies.
Bizarre statement. 1. Says who? 2. So? What's this got to do with "fighting terrorism"? (I thought that's what this was all about...)
The fear of an intrusive government can be addressed by setting criteria for any official who demands to see the card.
Oh yeah, that's foolproof! "Criteria"! Because after all, people in the government always obey "criteria". Or if they don't, other people in the government will force them to. Foolproof, I tell ya!
This statement is priceless, especially coming from a self-proclaimed "civil libertarian" who usually does nothing but whine and whine about how cops abuse their powers....
Finally, there is the question of the right to anonymity. I don't believe we can afford to recognize such a right in this age of terrorism.
Says the "civil libertarian"....yup, because of the calendar, we are now living in the Age of Terrorism (what, is the Age of Aquarius over already??), and now therefore, a Right has vanished. Just accept it, Mr. Dershowitz says so, and look: he's pointing at the calendar! How can you argue with that? :)
No such right is hinted at in the Constitution.
Says the "civil libertarian". Clearly he has not read the Ninth Amendment at all.
And though the Supreme Court has identified a right to privacy, privacy and anonymity are not the same.
I guess I just need a law degree to figure out how to read those darn "penumbras" correctly. Thanks for the lesson Mr. Dershowitz.
Rights are a function of experience, and our recent experiences teach that it is far too easy to be anonymous - even to create a false identity - in this large and decentralized country.
In other words, rights change over time the moment we feel less safe. I guess the prosecution will bring this up at the next trial where Dershowitz is for the defense.....
A national ID card would not prevent all threats of terrorism, but it would make it more difficult for potential terrorists to hide in open view, as many of the Sept. 11 hijackers apparently managed to do.
The reason they were able to hide in open view is not because they didn't have little ID card, numbskull (Dershowtiz, not you Pokey ;). For many of them, who were known by the FBI, it's because the government didn't simply go get 'em. Probably because that would "violate their rights", as so honorably defended by people like Dershowitz over the years....
A national ID card could actually enhance civil liberties by reducing the need for racial and ethnic stereotyping.
Ah, this is his main concern. Now I understand it all.
There would be no excuse for hassling someone merely because he belongs to a particular racial or ethnic group if he presented a card that matched his print and that permitted his name to be checked instantly against the kind of computerized criminal-history retrieval systems that are already in use.
Sounds a lot like utopia, don't it?
If there is too much personal information in the system, or if the information is being used improperly, that is a separate issue.
Oh boy, this is a whopper. "Separate issue" indeed. For now let's just rush ahead with a National ID Card; we'll trust the government not to collect too much information or use it improperly. Indeed we'll deal with that problem some other time, heck don't even bring it up, because, you guessed it - it's a "separate issue"!
The only information the card need contain is name, address, photo and print.
And that's all it will contain. They promise!
From a civil liberties perspective, I prefer a system that takes a little bit of freedom from all to one that takes a great deal of freedom and dignity from the few - especially since those few are usually from a racially or ethnically disfavored group.
A quote right up there with the best of Patrick Henry or Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin, isn't it? Almost brings tears to my eyes and makes me wanna sing "America the Beautiful" ;)
A national ID card would be much more effective in preventing terrorism
Still hasn't explained how. (Indeed, nobody has.)
A national ID card would be much more effective in preventing terrorism than profiling millions of men simply because of their appearance.
Which is his real concern (he's really starting to sound a little paranoid). Heck it doesn't have to be National ID. As long as we do something besides racial profiling, and pretend we're doing it to "fight terrorism", I'll warrant that Mr. Dershowitz would be happy and write a piece full of sophisms defending it.
I'll second your vote. Since Mr. Dershowitz began his piece by pretending that what he's defending should be "optional", I suppose we can assume that he'll be among the first volunteers, huh? :)
I don't believe we can afford to recognize such a right [to bear arms] in this age of terrorism.
And what if the government decides that recognizing the right to practice religion or be of Semitic heritage is a right that we just can't afford to recognize?
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.