out minorities, because gangs are mostlyrnmade up of blacks and Latinos. Thatrndoesn’t quite jibe with his campaignrnstatement that he would “put the prioritiesrnof law-abiding people ahead of hoodlums.”rnOf course, by “hoodhuns,” hernmeant white suburbanites.rnThe absurdih’ of George Ryan’s careerrnas a one-term governor in the Land ofrnLincoln is undeniable. The real questionrnthat remains is: Have conservativesrnlearned their lesson? Why voters who arernpro-life, pro-gun, and anti-tax always dcfaidtrnto die Stupid Party is beyond reason.rnBut if George Ryan’s ridiculously leftwingrnterm has been a wake-up call forrnthem, then perhaps he has served a purpose.rn—Aaron D. WolfrnNATIONAL IDENTITY CARDS?rnYou may think that as an American citizen,rnyou do not own such a thing, andrnunder no circumstances would you contemplaternaccepting one. That’s justrnsomething for Europeans, Latin Americans,rnpeople from countries with a RomanrnLaw tradition, and other such lesserrnbreeds without the law. Any Americanrnlegislator would think it suicidal to introducernan identit)-card law.rnNow, all of this is quite true, but neverdieless,rnwe do carry official identity papers,rnand not just our social-securityrncards, which we do not have to show tornpolice on demand —not yet. But wcrncertainly carry identit)’ cards if we everrnhope to travel by air. If you check in forrnanv commercial flight of any distance,rn}ou have to show an official photo ID,rnand only a government-issued documentrnwill suffice. No card, no travel, and nornchance to participate in all the personalrnand professional opportunities opened byrnthe democratization of air travel. I’hatrnmakes your identification documentusually,rnvour driver’s license—a virtualrnnational identity card, or what the oldrnSoviet Union called an “internal passport.”rnIdentity cards have come to thernUnited States, and nobody protests.rnHow did they ever sneak this one byrnus? The official justification was thatrnsuch identification made terrorism lessrnlikely—a proposition that, on slight examination,rnproves to be utter nonsense.rnRarely do terrorists give themselves awayrnby revealing their occupation on theirrnpersonal papers (“Purpose of visit: mayhem,rnmurder, and carnage”). Moreover,rnas ever)’ counterinsurgency expert knows,rnif there is anyone whose papers are alwaysrnin impeccable order, it is the terrorist.rnThe idea that demanding personal identificationrnmight control crime is ludicrous,rnbut the whole story does reveal anrnalarming truth about the ordinary citizensrnof what they imagine to be a lawabidingrndemocratic state. People are preparedrnto let police and government getrnaway with prett)’ much anything, so longrnas it is justified in terms of some convenientrnoutside menace — the more thoroughlyrndemonized the better. And oncernthis ultimate demon’s name has been invoked,rnthe public seems to lose any criticalrnsense about official claims. Oh,rnyou’re doing this to fight terrorists. I see —rnthat’s different.rnThe tendency to cave in to police blusterrnwas in the news repeatedly this pastrnsummer. A fascinating discussion occurredrnwhen the American Bar Associationrnorganized a group to role-play thernsocial and legal effects of a biologicalrnwarfare attack on an American cit’. Notrnsurprisingly, the conclusion was thatrnsuch an attack —or even a rumor ofrnsuch an outbreak —would basically berngrounds for eliminating all civil libertiesrnovernight and permitting the militar}’ tornsupersede all city and state jurisdictions.rnIn the words of Suzanne Spaulding, a formerrnlawyer for the GIA and tiie SenaternIntelligence Committee: “To an extent,rnpeople are going to do what needs to berndone and worry about the legal nicetiesrnlater.” Based on extensive precedent inrnrecent years, she is evidentiy right. We’llrntake pretty much anything thrust uponrnus.rnIllustrating the same grim fact was a recentrnreport from the RAND Corporationrncntitied Super Bowl Surveillance: FacingrnUp to Biometrics, by John D. Woodward,rnJr. This document explored the implicationsrnof scanning large crowds in order tornanalyze facial featmes and to use thisrn”biometric facial recognition” techniquernto pick out anyone previously identifiedrnas a potential terrorist. Woodward acknowledgesrnall the difficulties of suchrndragnet scanning, which offers policernforces a technique of sun’cillanee far superiorrnto anything Orwell imagined. “AsrnI board the subway on my way to work,rnmake purchases in stores, visit my doctor,rnor attend a political rally, my faceprintrnwill be matched with information in tiierndatabase, allowing the surveiller to trackrnmy movements. Similarly, the authoritiesrncan enter on their watch list the biometricrninformation —the faceprints —rnof all those who attended the politicalrnrally with me.” However nightmarish,rnsuch tactics are increasingly being used,rnwhether we like it or not, because theyrnare a means to defeating an unpopularrnand indefensible outside menace: terrorism.rnOne nice feature of the RAND reportrnwas the perceptive discussion of “functionrncreep,” or how police tactics developedrnto fight serious dangers expand tornfar lesser crimes. Woodward specidatesrnhow biometric technology, once it becomesrnfamiliar and acceptable (ju.st as wernhave come to accept our identity cards),rnit will be used against other unpopularrnbehaviors. Even then, we still won’t fightrnback. When the police announce thatrnthey are surveilling streets to seek out les.serrncriirrinals, I can hear the public responsernnow. Oh, it’s something to catchrndeadbeat dads. I see—that’s different.rn—Philip JenkinsrnNATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSErnproponents and supporters of Americanrnabrogation of the 1972 Antiballistic Missilern(ABM) Treaty claim that Moscowrnis now grudgingly reconciled to both.rnWhen Russian President Vladimir Putinrnand Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov irritablyrncountered such suggestions, thernBush administration sent Defense SecretaryrnDonald Rumsfeld on a one-day triprnto Moscow on August 13. Mr. Rumsfeld’srnwas not a diplomatic mission, however,rnbut an exercise in public relations.rnTwo days before the trip, the New YorkrnTimes conveyed Washington’s view thatrn”the outcome is preordained,” since, onrnmissile defense, “the United States is unyielding.”rnAfter the meeting, Ivanovrncomplained that Rumsfeld had failed tornexplain why he thought the treah’ shouldrnbe scrapped and did not say how many offensivernnuclear weapons the LJnitedrnStates was prepared to destroy in returnrnfor Russian concessions on missile defense.rnWhy did Mr. Rumsfeld clock 20,000rnfrequent-flyer miles merely to talk to hisrnRussian counterpart about “a new relationship”rnbetween the two countries thatrnwould supposedly require them to “movernbeyond the Cold War institutions such asrnthe ABM treaty”? The reason is simple:rnThe administration wanted to cite his triprnas proof of its good-faith effort to appeasernthe Russians and make them into “strategicrnpartners” before President Bush announcesrnAmerica’s unilateral withdrawalrnOCTOBER 2001/7rnrnrn