Simplicity in Power

The United States and the World. As the superpower in the international arena, the United States usually paves a democratic path for other nations.

Let’s wake up from our dream, and look out the window. In a post 9/11 world, it seems like war has become the motto for the current administration to offer security to our people. That makes sense. I support an effort to destroy governments that oppress its people and create diplomatic hurdles for the world. I support an effort to push democracy into parts of the world so people can have their basic human rights. However, being democratic is exactly what the situation overseas is lacking. The United States is now militaristically dictating the neighborhoods of Iraq and Afghanistan, where governments that once revolved around fundamentalist, religious principle are now being run by oppressive forces in a new mask. See the difference the war has made? I don’t.

The US treads a thin line while in combat in the Middle East. It is beyond the scope of differences that exist between two nations; it has become the cultural clash between two philosophies and religions. Again, the US is dealing with forces way beyond the military’s comprehension of running governments and societies. The main goal of our government is to ensure national sovereignty, by any means. However, with the current state of affairs in the influential regions of the world (the same in which we are ironically involved), people have their button on the trigger to unleash a pandemonium of conflict that would not only threaten our sovereignty, but our own safety.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates mentioned in late October “the Army needed to improve its ability to train foreign militaries and to prepare for other unconventional conflicts that it was likely to face in coming decades.”

Our military must observe how it acts in regard to each conflict, as the list of interventions increases. Having the same approach and policy of aggression and military control makes no sense, when the conflict is with different people, different cultures, and for different reasons. The biggest consequence for the United States (and our military) is a backlash of a civil rebellion. As of October 11th, 2007, nearly 655,000 “extra” Iraqi civilians have died since the invasion. To be reasonable, most of those deaths are innocent individuals caught up in the US Army’s policed actions. The United States must draw a line in its military policy to maintain a stronger image of our federal government.

The reason behind the high toll of Iraqi deaths’ and growing US deaths is simply that people don’t like to be told what to do by strangers, and the Islamic world for instance, maintains a high standard for respect and tradition. The one thing an administration should do to respect the sovereignty of other nations and cultures is to simply step back and limit the role of our armed forces in other nations. We still need to have a strict foreign policy on oppressive governments, but limit ourselves from being a parent to others. The consequence of this philosophy is a stronger focus on our economy and reaping the benefits of globalization. The United States can thus keep pace with growing economies of the East by maintaining a check on its foreign affairs, through restricting the role of our armed forces. As for individuals like you and I, the best benefit of a more controlled international role is our safety. In today’s world, with varying views on government and culture, respect, tradition, and diplomacy are the key elements for the current administration to establish a legacy.

A more hidden issue that Gates’ views have uncovered is the effect it has on our government and the GOP’s role in the 2008 elections. The current administration has defined itself through aggressive, sovereign and spirited actions. Moreover, the right side of our government must try to present an appealing platform to counter a growing balanced attack from the left.

Frontrunners such as Rudy Giuliani must understand the constitutionality of the current administration’s policies. Instead of targeting Democratic nominees, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the GOP must develop a platform that outlines the ‘new and improved’ conservative policy. This includes addressing the conflicts abroad. Robert Gates will likely be replaced; likewise, the military will need new guidance and mentorship from an administration that must limit the military’s role abroad. Of having chance to win the elections, they must establish stronger constitutionality to the military that involves limiting its diplomatic roles and empowering its sovereign and safety roles.

More and more Americans today believe that the Iraq war is growing out of the government’s control.  According to an October Gallup Poll, 6 out of 10 say US involvement in the war was a mistake. This is a burden that will carry into the next administration, regardless of affiliation. Understanding the constitutional limits to our policy abroad (not policing the streets of other nations, influencing the development of diplomacy in other governments) is crucial towards developing support for the federal government. On a brighter note, American troops begin withdrawal soon, meaning we could see a shift in policy in the Middle East. A more constructive move in the Middle East will enable the left side to establish a conservative, constitutional, and sovereign policy that will support the Republican candidate, as well as help improve the tarnished image of the US Military’s ethics.

In retrospect, our freedom fighters have done a courageous job ensuring the safety of Americans by eliminating institutions that pose a threat to our freedoms. An administration that supports a strong, aggressive military approach towards maintaining our sovereignty and safety is tactical. However, drawing limitations around the military’s role beyond resolving conflict is a key step for the current and future administration to maintain our constitutionality. If we could live in an era where the world respected the basic human rights of every human being, diplomacy would be a child’s game. Robert Gates must establish a more strategic option for the U.S. military in handling the civil conflicts that exist within operations abroad. That option is simply becoming more tactical and utilizing the military’s resources for defeating oppressive institutions and hurdles that exist towards creating a democratic society for many human beings, who simply deserve their basic rights – the right to live.

-Sandeep Shah

Real ID Act: Are You for Real?

On May 11, 2005, under the counsel of the 9/11 Commission, President Bush signed into law the Real ID Act – a bill that may ultimately jeopardize the American citizen’s right to privacy, and waste billions of taxpayer dollars. The Real ID Act is actually part of a larger bill entitled “Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005,” which was originally meant to obstruct terrorism.

Chiefly, the Real ID Act reforms border control and establishes national criterion for state-issued driver’s licenses and identification cards. The bill also prohibits the federal government from accepting state-issued identification for any official federal purpose. In other words, this new ID card will be necessary for one to gain employment, fly on an airplane, open a bank account and enter a federal building.

Thus, it will require every American to hold an identification card, and it will centralize every citizen’s personal information into a national database. For now, the Real ID Act only requires that ID cards have one’s full legal name, signature, date of birth, sex, driver’s license number and residence, but there has been discussion about whether or not the federal government should mandate that states put additional information into the federal database, such as a citizen’s driving record and firearms registrations.

Most supporters of this bill view it as a measure against terrorism rather than as an anti-immigration bill. Its fan base is primarily mainstream Republican. According to advocates, the Real ID will secure our borders and prevent terrorist infiltration. It will also assist the federal government in keeping tabs on potential terrorists.

Drawbacks of the Real ID Act are many, but most are centered on privacy and cost issues. Creating a national database that joins all of the states’ information about its citizens will make every American more vulnerable to identity theft. Not only identity theft in the realm of high tech computer hack jobs into government databases, but now your information could potentially become readily available to any organization, retailer, employer or anyone else who requests your driver’s license or social security number – not to mention the government.

This law’s ratification has officially moved America closer to a “show us your papers,” statist society. The fourth amendment provides us freedom from unreasonable search and seizure; this right should extend into the digital age also. No person is above the fourth amendment, not even in the name of Homeland Security.

The Real ID Act is a largely un-funded federal mandate. Although Congress plans to give $40 million to states to help implement this new system, it’s hardly a drop in the bucket.

“When we know it [the cost] is going to be around $11 billion [nationally], to offer $40 million is almost an insult,” declared Texas state senator Leticia Vande Putte.

In Texas alone, start-up costs to pay for new technology and verification systems are around $142.6 million, with annual expenses of about $67 million. Naturally, taxpayers are expected to pick up the slack.

Many people, politicians and citizens alike, are put off by the shear inconvenience of the law. If this law isn’t repealed, then over the next two years 12 million Texans will have to renew their licenses and state ID cards. In this way, the law puts a huge burden on local and state governments. Furthermore, insufficient media coverage about the impending change almost guarantees a flood of Texans into DPS’s in late 2009.

According to Chief Judy Brown of the Driver’s License Division of Texas, “The Department [of Public Safety] and its employees will face implementation challenges with legislative, operational, and fiscal limitations.”

No doubt the Real ID Act is going to be a bureaucratic nightmare.

Because the Real ID license would only be available to those with a social security number, obtaining a driver’s license as a non-citizen would be near impossible. Legal and illegal aliens who will presumably still drive, will then drive unregulated and without liability insurance.

Due to its unpopular infringement of privacy and its cost, several states have passed legislation to oppose the Real ID Act – including Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, and Washington.

In our own state, we have Congress members on all sides of the issue, but the majority is in favor of the Real ID; it’s unlikely that Texas legislators will move to reject this law or refuse its implementation. Most politicians in Texas are so in favor of the law that ten Texas Republican representatives including Gohmert, Hall, Neugebauer, Poe, McCaul, Johnson, Granger, Carter, Barton and our own Lamar Smith actually cosponsored the bill on its way through the House.

Neugebauer, happy to see it pass, says it will increase border security and in turn national security. Smith, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee was also a promoter of the Real ID Act stating, “It makes the country safer and protects the American people from terrorists who would use the most common form of ID as cover.”

Not all Texas representatives are so sure. Both Republican representatives Jackson-Lee and Gonzalez were cosponsors of a bill that would repeal the Real ID Act.

Texas state senator Craig Estes expressed a similar viewpoint: “While I support efforts to enhance our national security, it should not come at the loss of state sovereignty and the undue burden on our citizens.”

Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul has also remained adamant about the law since its conception. “In reality, this bill is a Trojan horse,” said Paul in 2005. “It pretends to offer desperately needed border control in order to stampede Americans into sacrificing what is uniquely American: our constitutionally protected liberty.”

-Lauren King