One of the knottiest decisions confronting the Congress when it gets back into action in February will be choosing between national security and the right of privacy, a challenge manifested not only by renewal of the Patriot Act but also the mandated Real ID driver's licenses. Regrettably, political polarization has become so divisive in Washington that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats can participate in a constructive discussion of the subjects.
There is no doubt that 9/11 initiated a kind of security threat that challenges our traditional attitudes about privacy. In response to this threat, Congress and the administration adopted controversial proposals to detect terrorism but they also encroach on traditional views of privacy.
A good deal of the opposition is being driven by partisan politics but substantially more comes from individuals who fear abuse of governmental power. Questionable surveillance activities by the National Security Agency have underscored the fear that any grant of broad power will carry with it greater danger of abuse. Centuries of observation tell us that all power, whether in governments, businesses or churches, will be abused. In most cases, it is sufficiently subtle to avoid detection. Nevertheless, it is an unavoidable concomitant of power.
Because of 9/11, the permanent threat of terrorism is before us and government must have powers equal to the challenge. Apparently, some think that government can deal with this new style of war without being retooled. Frankly, I am not so sure that we can preserve the same degree of privacy that we enjoyed before 9/11 and still cope with terrorism.
During the next few weeks, Congress will be drawing the line between governmental power and privacy in its reauthorization of the Patriot Act. Closer to home are the proposals to require passports for crossing international boundaries and the federally-mandated uniform Real ID driver's license. The passport idea seems to have been discarded but the Real ID is here to stay and will be required for air travel and entering federal buildings after 2008.
ADVERTISEMENT
Because the 9/11 hijackers had obtained state driver's licenses, the primary objective of the Real ID is to set tougher national standards for issuing licenses and make it more difficult for terrorists to obtain driver's licenses.
The tougher standards are driving state agencies wild, not only because of the cost but also because of the dramatic changes required to do business. The law requires states to check more thoroughly the qualifications of applicants, to document their immigrant status, to maintain complete documentation, to require full legal names and permanent addresses, and to have license photos that can be read by facial-recognition machines.
Keith Magnusson, deputy director of North Dakota's Driver and Vehicle Services, has estimated that it may cost the state as much as $6 million to meet Real ID requirements. Other states report even higher costs, depending on the condition of their licensing systems and the number of licensees. What's more, they have no assurance that the federal government will pay the bill.
Up to this point, the proposals to respond to terrorism have collected a wide array of opponents - the American Civil Liberties Union, the U. S. Chamber of Commerce, most congressional Democrats along with a few Republicans, and a whole host of libertarians of all colors and stripes. Maybe opposition is necessary to curb the granting of unnecessary powers but, at the same time, opposition needs to be tempered by the fact that this is post-9/11, terrorism is here to stay, and the United States is a prime target. If we don't like the answers proposed, we have the responsibility to get positive and come up with acceptable alternatives. Draconian opposition by itself is not enough.
Omdahl is former North Dakota lieutenant governor and retired University of North Dakota political science teacher. E-mail lloyd_omdahl@und.nodak.edu
