[Previous entry: "Judge Rules Against CC On Land Division Appeal"] [Next entry: "You’re In Violation! Oh…Never Mind"]

07/30/2007: "Guest Editorial"

A Concept Whose Time Has Arrived
by Charlie Bodenstab

In a prior essay I presented what I believe to be a compelling case for never committing our ground forces to an enemy who “values neither his own life nor the lives of his own people”. The adversary’s ability to commingle with the civilian population negates our technical and general military superiority. This argument leads directly to the conclusion that we should withdraw from Iraq and be careful not to commit our ground forces in a similar situation in the future.

The dilemma we face is even more perverse however than simply battling terrorist forces in a few specific countries such as Iraq, Iran or Afghanistan. We could “win the war” in Iraq with virtually zero impact on the radical mentality distributed throughout the world.



Moreover, the past arguments about terrorists are falling apart. These are not strictly poor disenfranchised people, but often well-educated, relatively affluent citizens of prosperous societies. They are not acting out of sympathy for Palestinians, citizens of Iraq, or any other beleaguered people but rather they are inspired by a religiously driven doctrine that preaches violence, and radical objectives, usually connected to wreaking havoc on the U.S and its allies.

The bottom line is that we are faced with an enemy who is embedded in a growing number of countries scattered across the globe – an inaccessible enemy that we cannot annihilate via concentrated force. Ergo, if we can’t wipe out the nests, we had better tighten the security of this nation to a much higher degree than we have at present.

Call the strategy “isolationism” or “fortress America” or whatever. We absolutely must take stronger more aggressive steps to protect this country from people whose intent is to do us harm. There are a variety of high priority actions to be taken in this regard, with better intelligence sources being near the top, followed by better detection devices at sensitive points of entry into the country, and finally better training of our security personnel at all levels. These are not very profound observations and the only issue here is one of allocating our resources more intelligently. The funds are available once we stop squandering them on hopeless military encounters.

The trickier area relates to the need to identify who is in this country, foreigner or national, and how to locate them as needed. Over and above our problem with illegal immigrants crossing our southern border, people arrive with falsified documents and even when they use authentic ones they often grossly overstay their allotted time with little concern about being apprehended. The estimates on the number of individuals who are in the US on expired visas vary wildly but are certainly in the hundreds of thousands. Additionally, authorities possess limited capability to promptly locate either a foreigner or a US citizen who may be guilty of terrorist intent.

One of the most powerful tools that our security agencies could have is a National Identification Card (NIC) that is unique to each person and impervious to fraud. This is not similar to the types of identification we have now, all of which can be copied by some moderately competent forger. It would contain a picture and signature, for immediate, but not crucial identification, plus a human iris pattern for a totally positive identification for more sensitive purposes. Iris scanning technology has advanced to the point where the scanning devices are becoming increasingly affordable to the point they can be installed at all sensitive locations.

The card would be unique and immune to forgery and eventually every citizen of the United States would be required to have an NIC, just as we accept similar requirements such as being licensed to drive, having a social security number, or acquiring a passport for international travel.

Incoming visitors would be issued a temporary card upon entering the country, if not at the moment of entry, then within 24 hours. Attempts to use the temporary card after the 24 hours would immediately trigger a response. The technology exists for all of this, and the funds are available once we back off our current policy of foreign military actions. Any problems that may exist with instituting the NIC are neither financial nor technological, but rather political in nature.

The NIC by itself would only be moderately helpful. The second part of the “mechanism” is to insure that the card is a requirement for services at a broad variety of locations covering, airlines, rental cars, hotels, banking, employment, etc.. Specifically, the purpose is to make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for someone to function in this country who is here illegally or for dubious reasons. No card, no services. To get a card you have to go through a background check. Once you have a card your identity is established and your whereabouts are generally known if necessary.

At this point you may have a visceral reaction to the potential for misuse and illegal exploitation of this admittedly very powerful tool. There is no question that the potential exists. Let’s not kid ourselves however. Abuse of our current identification systems is rampant, and we should have no illusions about the sanctity of our privacy. We are currently suffering the “worst of both worlds”! We do not have adequate privacy safeguards and yet we aren’t enjoying the benefits of a comprehensive identity system.

The solution to this concern is to enact a body of legislation that clearly identifies the unacceptable misuses of this program and lays out major punishments for violators, including prison sentences for the individuals convicted. Having a single system on which to focus our vigilance for misuse will actually provide better personal security than the ineffective scattershot situation we have today. Also note that the card will not have medical histories, DNA or any similar sensitive information.

If this still isn’t satisfactory, then my question is simply, “and what do you propose?” At what point do we recognize that our instinctive reactions to privacy issues may have to be reviewed in light of current realities? What do we say to someone who lost an entire family in a terrorist attack perpetrated by some individual who was safely embedded in our society with no danger of being discovered? We can’t hold our security forces responsible for our safety and then deny them the tools need to perform the function in today’s world.

Incidentally, while the primary objective of the NIC is against terrorists, it would make a profound contribution to our other, more benign, but nevertheless serious problem associated with illegal immigration across our Southern border.

We are not pioneering new ground in this proposal. Many countries in Europe have systems similar to what I’m proposing and England has already taken initial steps for establishing an NIC. Additionally, the joint US and Canada Nexus program currently being implemented for travel in and out of Canada has many of the characteristics of the NIC such as very comprehensive background checks.

I do not suggest that this proposal is a cure-all and will totally secure the nation against terrorists. No system is totally fool proof. I do submit however that our level of security would be enhanced by a quantum factor and that’s a lot better than we see from most contemporary efforts.



(Charlie Bodenstab lives on San Juan Island, is a Fortune 500 executive, an owner of a distribution company, a consultant, software producer, and author of Information Breakthrough (Oasis Press) “Information should impart knowledge and direction - and ultimately trigger positive action”.))