Homeland Security

For REAL airplane security click on this audio file!

BIG BROTHER'S NATIONAL ID CARD

House Editorial -- an article from The Washington Times

A national Identification card complete with biometric identifiers, such as fingerprints or retinal scans is coming. Only it's not being called that. House Resolution 4633 the Driver's License Modernization Act of 2002 would effectively create a national ID if it's passed. The bill would require each state to adopt a uniform standard for driver's licenses and link their motor vehicle databases to a central computer registry. H.R. 4633 would "amend title 23, United States Code, to establish standards for state programs for the issuance of drivers' licenses and identification cards, and for other purposes." It would make use of "encoded biometric data matching the holder of the license or card." In other words, American citizens who have never committed any crime would be subject to fingerprinting (or something similar, such as a retinal scan) and compelled to carry a card with an embedded computer chip containing reams of personal information.

What the legislation calls for is, in fact, a national ID card that every adult American would effectively be forced to carry. The only way to opt out would be to give up one's driver's license something that is not practical in an era when, outside of major cities, being able to drive is a necessity without which one cannot secure or maintain employment. And like the now-ubiquitous Social Security number which, recall, was "never to be used for identification purposes," but which is now almost impossible to conduct any business without the coming national ID/driver's license will almost certainly become an item without which one cannot open a bank account, obtain a credit card, purchase a car or home, and so on.

As Eric Skrum of the National Motorists Association put it recently: "Ultimately, anybody in any state with a card reader would be able to look up your personal driving record, credit rating, Social Security number, health information, personal address, and anything else the government would force you to divulge in order to 'voluntarily' obtain a driver's license."

They can call it whatever they want, but the end result will be the same. This bill should be rejected as being incompatible with a free society.

-----------------------------------------------------------

This article was mailed from The Washington Times

(http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20021005-695758.htm)

For more great articles, visit us at http://www.washtimes.com

From James Hall and his article "Matt Hale an enemy combatant?"

"Here is a resolution from students of the Milton Academy. They have it right. Just substitute your name for Hamdi and Padilla. A Resolution Prohibiting the Detention of US Citizens as Enemy Combatants

Whereas: Yassir Hamdi and José Padilla have been detained as enemy combatants, despite the fact that they are United States citizens, And

Whereas: The detention of citizens in such a manner denies them of their right to due process and equal protection, guaranteed in the Constitution, And

Whereas: The President maintains that he may detain enemy combatants indefinitely without access to counsel, And

Whereas: United States Code Title 18 Section 4001 (a) states that “no citizen may be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress” And

Whereas: The continued detention of US citizens as enemy combatants sets a disturbing precedent that may easily be abused, especially given the indefinite nature of the current “war on terrorism.”

Therefore, Be It Resolved by this Student Congress here assembled that the President does not have the right to detain United States citizens as enemy combatants.

"This is really an astounding assertion of authority," said David Cole, a Georgetown University law professor.

"It's not just that you have no right to a lawyer, it's that you have no right to even have a hearing. . . . If that is true, then there is really no limit to the president's power to label U.S. citizens as bad people and then have them held in military custody indefinitely."

Robert A. Levy from the Cato Institute addresses the Padilla case. “The Constitution does not distinguish between the protections extended to ordinary citizens on one hand and unlawful-combatant citizens on the other”.

“Without either constitutional or statutory authority, the administration has decided that it will set the rules, prosecute infractions, determine guilt or innocence, then review the results of its own actions. That's too much unchecked power in the hands of the executive branch -- making a mockery of the doctrine of separation of powers that has been a cornerstone of our Constitution for two-and-a-quarter centuries.”

"We will stand, fight, and die to defend our country; but we will not blindly trust it. Even our Founding Fathers distrusted a large, centralized, all-powerful federal government -- so should we. Always be on guard to discern the truth and defend it at all costs."