I don't think that is the intention of the government when the issue of these cards came up, do you?
Nope, it never starts out that way. After all, Mussolini was very popular at first for making the trains run on time. The good intentions of Marx certainly got corrupted quickly.
Dana, to answer your question, it all comes down to power. Power does corrupt. We've all seen it in the WTS world, haven't we? Well, it's no different in the government, any government. Power is intoxicating. Look at the instant reaction of congresspersons after this crisis -- they want to make laws. Why, weren't the existing laws good enough? Sure they were, if they could be enforced, but that's what congresspersons do, they make laws. They have power, so they use power.
When wiretapping laws first went into effect decades ago, the intention was good. What ultimately happened? Corrupt FBI officials used it against their "enemies." They gained a power, and eventually began using it in corrupt ways.
So since this principle is so universal, the solution is to very reluctantly grant power over your life to another human or institution. Again, we learned that lesson from the WTS, right? If you don't give the government a power over you, it can't be used against you later on by corrupt individuals. And remember, this "war" on terrorism is so very open-ended, with no end goal in sight, that it will be with us for many years to come. Any new laws that are created to "help us deal with the crisis" will be around long after their initial purpose has ended. Government grows, not shrinks. Once you grant a power, you rarely get it back.
How do you decide which power is acceptable to grant the government? You ask youself a simple question: Would that power have helped prevent the disaster if it had been in place at the time? Since we are worried about repeat violence, if the answer is Yes to that question, it may very well be worth giving up that power under the circumstances. If the answer is No, then there is absolutely no way we should give up that power.
The tricky thing is that politicians will always tell us that we "need" some new law to "prevent" that from happening again. They tell us whether this is true or not. For instance, one new law being considered is a ban on strong cryptography. Did the terrorists use strong cryptography? Actually, they did not. They used plain text Yahoo mail type messages back and forth, and phone calls. So why did the congressperson tell us that the disaster was a reason to ban strong cryptography? Was he just ignorant? Did he not know the facts? No, he knew, but he also knew that the way to get laws passed during a time of public hysteria is to play to the hysteria. If people think the terrorists used strong cryptography, why all the better! Let's pretend this new control will help in the future.
See the problem? Existing laws could have prevented the terrorists from being successful -- if those existing laws had been applied. For instance, the NSA managed to capture communication between the terrorists where they talked about their plans! Why wasn't this information released? Because the NSA said they didn't examine the communication until after the attack when it was too late. And the terrorists who lived in America were here illegally -- under existing immigration laws. If the existing laws had been enforced, this could have been prevented.
But no, for a politician, admitting failure isn't the answer -- just make new laws! That will keep the sheep in line for it will make them think they are DOING SOMETHING. The fact that the new laws won't help against future attacks is irrelevant to the politician. They just want power and to get re-elected. Now they can run on the campaign of how they "got tough on terrorism" even though they just behaved like idiots to those of us who listen to more than the nightly newscasts on TV.
Finally, to get to the national ID card concept, we ask that question above? Would it have helped? No, it would not. There are existing immigration laws that weren't enforced, so why would this have been enforced? And when it comes to creating fake IDs, that's no problems: did you know several of the hijackers had fake passports, of people currently living in the Middle East? Creating fake IDs is trivial, especially, ESPECIALLY if they are computerized. Just crack into the system and bingo! Fake IDs.
So now you have a populace conditioned to think they are SAFER because of this national ID, when they are in fact not much better off. Years go by and the threat of terrorism fades into the background, but the national ID system is still here and growing in scope every day. Remember, governments don't shrink, they grow, including the department of the National ID system. The government keeps finding new uses for the thing, and soon it becomes mandatory to not only have one, but to carry it at all times. A few cases occur where a serious crime is committed by a person not carrying the ID and then, presto!, new laws are created making a felony not to have your ID. More work for the beauracrats! More budget money! Yaaa!
How can the authorities tell if you are keeping the law and carrying your ID at all times? Why, spot checks of course, just like drunk driving spot checks that we are being conditioned to accept. Unreasonable search? How dare you question this! Aren't you patriotic? Show me your papers, er, your card. You left it in your other pants? Off to jail for you!
Far-fetched? Sure. But it's merely an extrapolation of current trends, given the universality of the idea that power corrupts. Once again, think back to our JW days. Remember the blood card when it first came out? Sure was a nice idea, but it was voluntary. Then they began to mandate it by enforcing it at the bookstudy locations. Then you needed it to show at the conventions, etc. It's a process that never fails to happen. Same thing with your Social Security card. When it first came out, authorities swore up and down it would never be used as a national ID. Try to get phone service without it now. Hard to do. It's a process that never fails to happen.
And since it won't make the world safer against terrorists (it's supposed purpose), it's only true purpose will be to exercise more control over law-abiding citizens. Maybe the authorities will remain forever benign about its use, and no corrupt authority will ever decide to use it for its own ends, or because somebody ticked off somebody else, but this is a chance I'd rather not take. Especially since it won't really help. I hope this explains why, purely on principle, I'd rather not see a national ID system.