Ok, so the election is over – at least for those of us outside of Ohio. But should the conversations stop?

I went to a Chamber of Commerce lunch recently where Richard Danzig, the former Secretary of the Navy and the Sam Nunn Prize Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies spoke on “National Security: Future Threats.”

His focus was on analyzing the challenges to law posed by the threat of terrorism and how we can best assess our responses. He encouraged the audience to discuss these threats and our responses to them with others. He pointed to 5 different ways of responding to terrorism, varying from doing nothing to hunting down the terrorists and killing them. As with all things, there are reasonable choices to be made, that can make our world safer while not invading our privacy.

He expressed that in order for this conversation to take place, that as a country, we first need to accept that there will be losses. Those losses include lives, personal freedoms and safety, but determining what levels of each are reasonable is what the conversation needs to address.

One specific example he mentioned was that many high-rises in big cities require people entering to show their photo ID�s. While requiring identification does create a requirement for entry, it does not stop real criminals, since teenagers can create fake ID�s, chances are criminals can too. This practice wastes time and creates frustrations for people who do not intend on doing harm – or does it?

What do you think is reasonable when it comes to ID�s?
Is a national ID a good idea, or will it create a new form of class-ism?
What about the illegal immigrants that fix us lunch each day and nurture our children? Should they have a form of ID as well?