ACLU Apologist for the Police State

Hammer Of Truth
Nov. 29, 2005

This one is pretty damned scary:

Miami police announced Monday they will stage random shows of force at hotels, banks and other public places to keep terrorists guessing and remind people to be vigilant.

Deputy Police Chief Frank Fernandez said officers might, for example, surround a bank building, check the IDs of everyone going in and out and hand out leaflets about terror threats.

There goes the Fourth Amendment and what particles remain of the Fifth.

“People are definitely going to notice it,” Fernandez said. “We want that shock. We want that awe. But at the same time, we don’t want people to feel their rights are being threatened. We need them to be our eyes and ears.”

Geez, like we need more shock and awe these days. What’s the plan, to intimidate honest citizens into being snitches for the jackbooted thugs. It is comforting to know that they “don’t want people to feel their rights are being threatened” — except for that quirky little 4th Amendment thing.

Howard Simon, executive director of ACLU of Florida, said the Miami initiative appears aimed at ensuring that people’s rights are not violated.

“What we’re dealing with is officers on street patrol, which is more effective and more consistent with the Constitution,” Simon said. “We’ll have to see how it is implemented.”

I’ve been actively supportive of the ACLU on this general issue, as they have been leading the way with respect to fighting the Patriot Act and related infringements of our civil rights. This time, I’ve got to hold their feet to the fire. The admission that the Miami Model is “more consistent with the Constitution” logically means that it is not consistent with the Constitution.

While I’m not at all surprised by another usurpation of our rights as American citizens, I am deeply upset (assuming the quotation above is correct) that an ACLU spokesperson has become an apologist for the police state.

Update by Stephen VanDyke: Radley Balko weighs in, saying “If the terrorists hate us for our freedom, then holy shit are we ever appeasing the terrorists.”

Another update by Stephen VanDyke: A modified version of the story in the Washington Post quotes police spokesman Angel Calzadilla as saying “there would be no random checks of identification.” Did the stink on the blogosphere drive them to drop the idea?