Letter to the Editor Dear

¶ … Letter to the Editor

Dear Editor:

I am writing in response to Mr. Dershowitz's letter regarding a national ID card. I want to state my emphatic disagreement with Mr. Dershowitz and his arguments for a national ID card.

First, I disagree that issuing a national ID card is a "trade off" for increased security and a "little less anonymity." A national ID card is simply another form of citizen control by an already underhanded and over-controlling government. This administration has already proved that additional controls and citizen scrutiny has not reduced the threat of terrorism and violence in our country. In fact, just today, the government issued a statement that the Taliban has successfully regrouped and may pose a larger threat to the country than ever since 9/11. In addition, that report noted that much of the threat now seems to revolve around European nations, such as Britain and Germany, who have relaxed relations with Pakistan, allowing easier entry into their countries, allowing terrorists to enter European countries on their way to the United States.

Thus, a national ID card would be useless in these cases, and useless in many others. Everyone knows that fake IDs are easy to obtain and use on many college campuses around the nation. The same is true of national ID cards. If a person wants to get around the system, they will find a way to do it, and technology today is so advanced that it is remarkably easy to replicate forms, IDs, and just about anything if a person has enough money, time, and energy. Certainly, terrorists fall into this category. They have the motivation, and given enough time, could certainly devise ways to divert the system or replicate the ID cards.

A also do not agree that a national ID card could end racial stereotyping and ethic policing measures. A national ID card does not ensure the person is not a criminal or potential criminal. According to Mr. Dershowitz, the ID card could contain a fingerprint that could be matched to a national database. He seems to think this matching takes seconds, and that a police officer on a traffic stop would immediately know the status of his suspect. In reality, fingerprint matching is an exact science that cannot be accomplished in seconds. It takes experts hours and sometimes days to match fingerprints, and with the backlog of cases and law enforcement needs currently, the idea of instant fingerprint matching is pie in the sky at best. Fingerprints may be "harder to fake," but they are also much harder to identify than a photo.

In addition, Mr. Dershowitz notes that the right to anonymity is not guaranteed by the Constitution, and that Americans should be willing to give up some of their rights for their safety. This is true, but Americans must be very careful about what rights they choose to give up. The rush to give up rights in the name of safety can steamroll and turn into an ever evolving litany of rights that are suddenly "unnecessary" in the name of safety. Americans may not have the right to anonymity guaranteed by the Constitution, but they still do have the right to privacy - something the administration has been slowly chipping away at with the use of wiretapping, financial records searches, illegal imprisonment, and a host of other "counter-terror" measures that have eroded the nation's privacy rights. Giving the government free reign can only result in the loss of much more than rights - it could eventually result in the loss of personal freedom, and that is a step the country should not take.