Alan Dershowitz: Why Fear National ID Cards?

CAMBRIDGE, Mass.

At many bridges and tunnels across the country, drivers avoid long delays at the toll booths with an unobtrusive device that fits on a car's dashboard. Instead of fumbling for change, they drive right through; the device sends a radio signal that records their passage. They are billed later. It's a tradeoff between privacy and convenience: the toll-takers know more about you — when you entered and left Manhattan, for instance — but you save time and money.

An optional national identity card could be used in a similar way, offering a similar kind of tradeoff: a little less anonymity for a lot more security. Anyone who had the card could be allowed to pass through airports or building security more expeditiously, and anyone who opted out could be examined much more closely.

As a civil libertarian, I am instinctively skeptical of such tradeoffs. But I support a national identity card with a chip that can match the holder's fingerprint. It could be an effective tool for preventing terrorism, reducing the need for other law-enforcement mechanisms — especially racial and ethnic profiling — that pose even greater dangers to civil liberties.

I can hear the objections: What about the specter of Big Brother? What about fears of identity cards leading to more intrusive measures? (The National Rifle Association, for example, worries that a government that registered people might also decide to register guns.) What about fears that such cards would lead to increased deportation of illegal immigrants?

First, we already require photo ID's for many activities, including flying, driving, drinking and check-cashing. And fingerprints differ from photographs only in that they are harder to fake. The vast majority of Americans routinely carry photo ID's in their wallets and pocketbooks. These ID's are issued by state motor vehicle bureaus and other public and private entities. A national card would be uniform and difficult to forge or alter. It would reduce the likelihood that someone could, intentionally or not, get lost in the cracks of multiple bureaucracies.

The fear of an intrusive government can be addressed by setting criteria for any official who demands to see the card. Even without a national card, people are always being asked to show identification. The existence of a national card need not change the rules about when ID can properly be demanded. It is true that the card would facilitate the deportation of illegal immigrants. But President Bush has proposed giving legal status to many of the illegal immigrants now in this country. And legal immigrants would actually benefit from a national ID card that could demonstrate their status to government officials.

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. No such right is hinted at in the Constitution. And though the Supreme Court has identified a right to privacy, privacy and anonymity are not the same. American taxpayers, voters and drivers long ago gave up any right of anonymity without loss of our right to engage in lawful conduct within zones of privacy. 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. 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.

A national ID card could actually enhance civil liberties by reducing the need for racial and ethnic stereotyping. 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. (If there is too much personal information in the system, or if the information is being used improperly, that is a separate issue. The only information the card need contain is name, address, photo and print.)

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 national ID card would be much more effective in preventing terrorism than profiling millions of men simply because of their appearance.Alan M. Dershowitz, a law professor at Harvard, is author, most recently, of "Letters to a Young Lawyer."

Dershowitz is an atheist.I think that precludes him from being a Jew.He and other atheists of Jewish "origin" should stop hiding behind the name of a religion that venerates God and attributes all Creation to God.Dershowitz needs his ID number tattooed on his beady little eyeballs.National ID cards have a glorious history-the Soviet Union,Red China,Nazi Germany,beginning to see a pattern here?

"Anyone who fakes a National ID card as folks fake and/or steal credit and drivers licenses will have the keys to the highway."

If teenagers can get IDs allowing them to buy beer, and criminals can get fake driver's licenses and terrorists can get fake passports and ID, it seems certain that they can get a fake identity card.

So, why spend the money, exert the effort and dilute our rights...if, at bottom, it won't work?

Looks like a liberal Democrat idea to me...

Why Fear National ID Cards

Right on Alan. Even better would be a tattoo showing our Social Security number, our religion, our sexual preference, our political affiliation and our ADA rating.

Dershowitz just loves to hear himself talk. One would think that a man who "teaches" law at a place like Harvard would be appalled by the potential violation of several specific, basic civil rights as posed by a National I.D. card.

Read up on the burning of the Reichstag, Freepers. ("Rise and Fall of the Third Reich") It served as the catalyst for the voluntary surrender of many Germans basic civil rights on the premis that the Bolshevic Revolution had begun by terrorists burning down their seat of power. The panic-stricken populace opted to relinquish personal freedoms in exchange for hightened security provided by the Government. The end result:

"YOUR PAPERS, PLEASE"

Apparently, Mr. Dershowitz has failed to remember the past, and is more than willing to repeat it.

Strange, it seems to me that there wasn't a great need for lawers in Germany after the fact.

"Do you thing Bush will ok it if it gets to his desk? I think he would."

Bush has already stated, unequivocally, that he has no interest in a national ID card and doesn't wish for Congress to pursue it.

Recall that this rumor first started when Blair introduced the idea in a joint press conference. Bush denied any interest in Tony's project.

"Why we should give up the essence of our country for pranksters and criminals is beyond me."

I would support a federal law that put the pranksters and criminals behind bars for, oh, say, twenty years-or-so.

Call it "felonious jerkery"...

Either National ID Cards will violate liberty, or they will not have the benefit which its proponents foresee in the first place. Either, or. Fair enough?

I pretty much agree with that, though I am not sure how current law would be affected by a requirement to carry an ID card. I am not sure what left wing lawyers would dream up to prevent the gubmint from requiring it. I can see some battles being fought over it. Is it a violation of liberty to be required to show identification under ANY circumstances, or just some?

This is the guy who had relatives TATOOED with a number before they were hustled off to the showers in Nazi Germany?

Dershowitz should have spent more time reading HISTORY in school or he'd KNOW that the most dangerous words in ANY language are "WHY, THAT COULD NEVER HAPPEN HERE!"

The gathering of the necessary proof means of fingerprints, biometrics and other info is a violation, and the SS has the virtue of its use being restricted under law and serious penalty.

Is that what has been proposed? The article here says name, address, photo, and fingerprint. What is a biometric? And what other info is being proposed?

I DO NOT FEAR A NATIONAL ID CARD, I JUST SEE NO USEFUL PURPOSE FOR IT. MOHAMMED ATTA WAS IN THIS COUNTRY LEGALLY. HOW WOULD A NATIONAL ID CARD SYSTEM HAVE PREVENTED THAT? PEOPLE WHO ARE CALLING FOR A NATIONAL ID CARD SYSTEM ARE WITHOUT DOUBT THE DUMBEST PEOPLE ON THE PLANET. THEY ARE THE WEAKEST LINKS

I am not required to carry my GA DL with me at all times. Only when I drive. And if I do not want to show my ID when making a purchase, I will go to the ATM and get cash. I still have a choice. With this National ID card, of what use is it if it is not carried with you at all times? None. And therein lies the problem. Will I be required by law to have that on my person at all times? Under what circumstances will someone (law enforcement) be able to ask for my ID? Based on what? Profiling??? What about my children? My under-aged children, will they be required to have one on their person?

I realize how close we are to having no privacy rights, but we still have some (although very little). With a National ID Card, we will have none.

Alan Dershowitz has shown himself to be a hypocrite once again.

Re;1

Why stop at a National ID card? Why not a NEW WORLD ORDER UNITED NATIONS ID CARD, or skip the card and go directly to a BIO-CHIP implant in ones forhead or right wrist.
This way know one can buy nor sell w/o their bio-chip proving they're a ~~slave~~ citizen of the NWO..

If the The only way I'll get a NATIONAL ID CARD will be at gun point.

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. No such right is hinted at in the Constitution.

Alan, Alan, Alan, read the following. Try not to tire your lips too badly:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

It can't even keep dead people and pets from voting.

Now, now, now; I'm sure that it would quite effectively prevent dead people and pets from voting Republican.

Of course, the statement that a certain notion "was credible in the twelfth century, but is not credible in the twentieth" is shorthand for the statement that the notion conflicts with knowledge gained during the intervening time. I'll presume that Chesterton addresses this in the larger context from which the quote is drawn.

That said, there is no corresponding defense of Dershowitz's statement -- the threat of aggression, including terrorism, has always been with us.

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.