TLF contributor Jim Harper squares off with a national ID advocate on MSNBC:
I find Joan Messner’s argument baffling. “If the terrorists had not had drivers licenses, there probably would not have been an attack on 9/11,” she says. True enough. But what does that have to do with anything?
The point is that at the point when the 9/11 terrorist applied for drivers licenses, they hadn’t done anything illegal. They got their drivers licenses the same way the rest of us do: they went to the DMV and signed up for them. It’s not obvious on what basis we could or should have denied them licenses.
So Messner’s argument just seems like a non sequitur. I don’t see any way that a more secure drivers license would prevent another 9/11. Can anyone explain how this argument is supposed to work?