Harvard Law School professor and appellate attorney Alan Dershowitz argued for national identification cards for all United States citizens, as well as for foreign visitors, last night in a debate at the Old South Meeting House. The debate was intended to analyze civil liberties in the wake of Sept. 11.
Dershowitz said rights come from “our experiences with wrong. Unfortunately, they do not come from God or nature, and they are not inalienable.”
“Rights sometimes have to contract as a result of our experiences,” he said.
Dershowitz focused on the difference between a right to privacy and a right to anonymity with regard to liberties. He said a national ID card would prevent identification theft by including an individual’s name, photo and a telemetric chip that would hold the individual’s fingerprint or another unique characteristic.
“We need to distinguish between a right to privacy, which I believe in, and a right to anonymity, which I no longer believe in,” he said.
Civil liberties lawyer and author Harvey Silvergate countered Dershowtiz’s view, saying the ID cards are invasive. He cited literary examples of how this policy violates civil liberties.
“That’s ‘1984’ as far as I’m concerned,” he said. “[An ID card] doesn’t provide one ounce of protection for anyone.”
He added that if a national ID card were to be instated, the government would quickly take it further than its original intended use.
“Once the government gets its foot in the door, the door gets smashed in,” he said.
Silvergate said the card would soon be something everyone would be required to have at all times, as opposed to an optional piece of identification for boarding an airplane or entering a government building.
“The notion that a person walking the street can be stopped, asked to identify him or herself and account for their presence there is fundamentally against the free world,” he said. “And if you think that won’t come within six to seven years, you’re naïve.”
Silverglate said citizens have had the right to anonymity since the time of the Revolutionary War, adding, “There’s a reason it has survived all this time.” He disagreed with Dershowitz’s claim that Sept. 11 created a need for alterations to that right.
“It has not changed everything,” he said.
Dershowitz recognized his plan would not eradicate all forms of threat, but he maintained its powerful use.
“Do I think it stops terrorism?” he asked. “No. Do I think it improves our chances of balancing our control over it? Yes.”
He also claimed a universal card would make everyone more equal and would contribute to less harassment of Muslims and Arabs.
Despite the debate, Food Hall Forum Executive Director Tom Formicola said he thought the crowd of about 200 people responded well.
“It was a great crowd,” Formicola said. “People came ready to discuss, and regardless of their opinions, [they] got a lot out of it, and that’s always great to see.”
The debate was the spring season kickoff of the Ford Hall Forum, the nation’s oldest presenter of public series.
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
