Politicians can always be counted on to increase the Washington bureaucracy whenever they can. The counter-terrorism bill just passed by both House and Senate does just that, although it does do some good in the process. Among other provisions, the bill calls for more cooperation between the CIA and the military and increases the number of border patrol agents, but adds a new layer of bureaucracy to our intelligence services. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 creates a Director of National Intelligence with all the attendant rules and regulations that position will entail -- not to mention the horde of bureaucrats to enforce them. While several problems that reduce our security are fixed, the bill cannot be said to fix them all by any stretch of the imagination.
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) was worried that the bill would move control over spy satellites -- and the time-critical information they often provide for troops on the battlefield -- away from the Pentagon. Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-WI) wanted the bill to address the ease with which illegal aliens can obtain legal driver's licenses. Instead of being lauded for trying to protect Americans from harm, they were the subjects of "mainstream" media scorn and hand-wringing, using some relatives of some 9/11 victims -- always referred to as "the 9/11 families" -- as cover. The media, as always, was quick to create images of pathos. "Four women walked the halls of Congress almost every day for months, pictures of their loved ones in one hand and copies of the Sept. 11 commission report in the other," stated one AP "news" report which credited them with forcing Congress to pass the intelligence bill. Apparently, it had nothing to do with President Bush, who (according to a different AP report) "telephoned House and Senate lawmakers and used his weekly radio address Saturday to press Congress to pass the bill." The increasing politicisation of 9/11 victims by activist Liberals is amazing... but no more amazing than the fact that Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.VA) finally said something with which I agree. "No legislation alone can forestall a terrorist attack on our nation," Byrd said. He was one of only two Senators to vote against the bill, wanting to work on it further in next year's session; the other was James Inhofe (R-OK). Most Democrats, however, insisted on passing this bill as quickly as possible. "Every day we delay, our country is less safe," House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said. Certainly, we need increased bureaucracy right away. But is ignoring legitimate concerns to rush an incomplete bill through Congress the best way to make us more safe?
Rep. Hunter's objection to the bill was resolved, but Rep. Sensenbrenner's was more or less ignored -- and it's a critical issue. Sensenbrenner understood that one of the holes in our national security is the laxity of the driver's license system. In order to board an airplane in post-9/11 America, if you haven't done it recently, you have to show some form of picture ID -- most commonly a driver's license or state ID. You can also use your driver's license to rent a car, buy a gun, open a bank account, obtain a passport, drink, purchase cigarettes and vote. Thanks in part to Article IV, section 1 of the US Constitution (the "full faith and credit" clause), a driver's license is pretty much a national membership card, giving anybody who has one the freedom of the country. The problem is that anyone can get one, whether they're in the "club" or not. The 9/11 hijackers had 63 valid driver's licenses between them. Section 7212(b)(2) of the bill states that within 18 months, the Secretaries of Transportation and Homeland Security must establish national standards for these licenses. It specifies that the new standards must include proof of identity when obtaining a license, and that the licenses must contain a digital photograph and machine-readable information. That's not a bad start, but that's all it is -- a start. Illegal immigrants can still get driver's licenses, and with a valid license, their immigrant status is never questioned. Cops who ask people about their resident status without probable cause (or even with it, in most cases) would be pilloried for violating their civil rights, and probably be sentenced to "sensitivity training." Terrorists know this, and take advantage of it to blend in and escape detection.
Illegal immigration is tied to terrorism, and reform is necessary for our safety. When Dr. Philip Zelikow testified before the 9/11 commission, he said: "Considered collectively, the 9/11 hijackers included among them known al Qaeda operatives who could have been watchlisted, presented passports manipulated in a fraudulent manner, presented passports with suspicious indicators of extremism, made detectable false statements on their visa applications, were pulled out of the travel stream and given greater scrutiny by border officials, made false statements to border officials to gain entry into the United States and violated immigration laws while inside the United States." Yet they still moved about freely, using their driver's licenses and state IDs... flying on planes, renting cars, opening bank accounts to accept wire transfers, and attending fight schools. I'm somewhat less concerned about the civil rights of illegal aliens and terrorists than the lives of countless innocent US citizens and other legal residents of this country.
Temporary residents and guests of America -- those who are here on student or travel visas -- should have the expiration dates on their licenses or state ID cards tied to their visa expiration dates. That's a small change, but one that can help make us safer. Anyone overstaying his visa would find it far more difficult to rent a car, buy a gun or board an airplane with an expired license. No one who's in this country illegally should be issued a driver's license -- they should be arrested.
Why bother to try and stop terrorists from entering this country, if we're just going to give them the key to everything once they get in?
