Posted on 07/31/2004 5:12:22 AM PDT by sarcasm
he American Civil Liberties Union is in turmoil over a promise it made to the government that it would not knowingly hire people whose names appear on watch lists of suspected supporters of terrorism. Those lists are the very type it has strongly opposed in other contexts.
In April, for instance, the group filed suit to block the use of "no fly" lists of people barred from air travel or subject to heightened scrutiny, saying the lists were often inaccurate and violated the constitutional rights of some people.
The group made the promise not to employ people it knew to be on similar terrorism lists so that it could continue participating in a program that allows federal employees to make charitable contributions through payroll deductions.
That promise, several members of the A.C.L.U. board said, is at odds with the group's core principles and calls to mind an episode in 1940, when the board passed a resolution purging its staff of people who supported communism. With that history in mind, A.C.L.U. officials said, they had made the commitment in name only and did not intend to consult the lists.
"We oppose 'no fly' lists," said Michael Meyers, a member of the group's executive committee. "Now we have a 'no hire' list that we've signed onto. We're in the midst of an organizational cultural crisis of enormous size."
The promise and related subjects were discussed at a contentious, all-day board meeting in San Francisco on July 9, and a motion to rescind the promise was overwhelmingly rejected by a voice vote. A.C.L.U. officials said the debate would continue.
Anthony D. Romero, the group's executive director, said that the promise had not affected any employment decision by the group and that he had not reviewed the lists.
"I've printed them out," he said. "I've never consulted them."
In the "no fly" suit, the A.C.L.U. said that the name of one of its staff lawyers, a man of Middle Eastern descent, mistakenly appears on government security lists.
Mr. Romero said he signed a certification in January that the group "does not knowingly employ individuals or contribute funds to organizations found on" lists created by the federal government, the United Nations and the European Union. The certification referred specifically to three lists maintained by the Justice, State and Treasury Departments, including one called for by the Patriot Act, the antiterrorism law that the group has often criticized.
The certification has been required since October of all groups that participate in the Combined Federal Campaign, a charity drive for federal employees and military personnel that raised $250 million for thousands of groups last year. The lists, which contain thousands of names, are posted on the federal program's Web site.
Mr. Romero defended his decision to sign the certification but said he was seeking clarification from the government about the obligations it entails. He said that the language of the certification required knowingly employing someone named on the lists, and that he had taken care not to know the listed names.
"No amount of money is worth violating our principles," he said. "We would never terminate or kick off board members or staff members because of their associational rights. We've made those mistakes in the past."
But Mara T. Patermaster, the director of the charity program, which is run by the Office of Personnel Management, the government's human resources agency, said that ignoring the information on the lists was unacceptable and no defense.
"We expect that the charities will take affirmative action to make sure they are not supporting terrorist activities," she said. "That would specifically include inspecting the lists. To just sign a certification without corroboration would be a false certification."
"If an organization is found to falsely certify their eligibility for inclusion," she added, "they could be ruled temporarily ineligible for inclusion or they could be permanently excluded."
Mr. Romero disputed Ms. Patermaster's understanding. "On advice of counsel," he said, "we think our interpretation could be reasonable."
The A.C.L.U. received $470,000 from federal employees through the program last year, said Emily Whitfield, a spokeswoman for the group. The A.C.L.U.'s 2002 annual budget, the most recent available, was $102 million, including its foundations and affiliates, she said. The group's board has more than 80 members.
"That the A.C.L.U. board could vote down a motion to rescind this certification is just stunning to me," said Wendy Kaminer, a board member who walked out on the July 9 meeting on learning that Mr. Romero had signed the certification and so was not present for the voice vote to rescind it. "This is like the pope coming out in favor of abortion rights."
Mr. Romero said that vigorous debate is not unusual among civil libertarians. "That debate," he said of July 9, "was nothing different in tone or substance than debates we had on campaign finance, for instance."
Nadine Strossen, the president of the A.C.L.U. board, said Mr. Romero's decision to sign the certification was based on "a very reasonable, certainly clever interpretation."
"Do we do more harm than good by spurning money by certifying something that is plausible but not the only plausible interpretation?" she asked. "It's completely a debate about strategy, not principle."
"I think Anthony handled it completely appropriately," she added, saying the group's executive committee would consider the issue further on Aug. 7.
Robert B. Remar, a member of the executive committee who said he supported Mr. Romero, said the group should take prompt action given new information about the government's position that the certification requires diligent compliance.
"We either ought to litigate the legality of that or give the money back," he said. "I don't think the A.C.L.U. should be in the business of checking names on these lists."
Stan Furman, another board member, agreed. "It smacks of blacklists," he said. "We've seen that the government under Ashcroft has made numerous lists of 'terrorist organizations' that in my opinion aren't really terrorist organizations.''
In 1940, the group dropped Elizabeth Gurley Flynn from its board because she was a member of the Communist Party. (Ms. Flynn was posthumously reinstated.)
At the same time, it passed a resolution calling it inappropriate for anyone to serve on the group's governing committees or staff who was "a member of any political organization which supports totalitarian dictatorship in any country or by his public declarations indicates the support of such a principle."
"It was a colossal error," Samuel Walker, who wrote a history of the A.C.L.U., said of the 1940 decisions. "It has since been almost universally viewed as a reprehensible mistake."
In an article submitted to the op-ed pages of The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal after the July 9 meeting and supplied to a reporter by the A.C.L.U., Mr. Romero criticized the certification requirement as "an insidious chill on speech" though he did not note that he had signed the certification.
"The A.C.L.U. is currently challenging a version of these lists in its 'no fly' litigation," he wrote. "Our concerns are that ambiguous definitions of 'terrorism' and potentially inaccurate 'terrorism watch lists' can also serve to shut down legitimate forms of advocacy and debate. Relying on employers to enforce 'terrorist' lists also evokes eerie echoes of our McCarthy-era past."
ACLU --> Gitmo NOW to Maximize America security.
Hmmmmmmm, if they knowingly hire terrorists from the watch list, can they be investigated as
a terrorist organisation?
The group made the promise not to employ people it knew to be on similar terrorism lists so that it could continue participating in a program that allows federal employees to make charitable contributions through payroll deductions.
That promise, several members of the A.C.L.U. board said, is at odds with the group's core principles and calls to mind an episode in 1940, when the board passed a resolution purging its staff of people who supported communism. With that history in mind, A.C.L.U. officials said, they had made the commitment in name only and did not intend to consult the lists.
So they are lying to begin with.
"No amount of money is worth violating our principles,"
What principles? They've already violated them three times
in the first paragraphs.
Are you surprised?
First of all that's "Constitutional Rights." The last time I checked, and an airline is not Congress.
The group made the promise ...so that it could continue participating in a program that allows federal employees to make charitable contributions through payroll deductions
Any unionized government employee, whos income is directly derived from tax money should be strictly prohibited from giving money to the ACLU or any other terrorist/political organization, especially the RATs!
In the "no fly" suit, the A.C.L.U. said that the name of one of its staff lawyers, a man of Middle Eastern descent, mistakenly appears on government security lists
Probably for good reason. Is he a slammer or a Baptist?
"No amount of money is worth violating our principles," he said
Their "principles" are nothing more than tearing down the structure of American Society. I'm sure they get plenty of laundered money from the World Workers Party et al, and from their frivolous attacks on Americans.
In 1940, the group dropped Elizabeth Gurley Flynn from its board because she was a member of the Communist Party. (Ms. Flynn was posthumously reinstated.
And the difference between the Communist Party and the Federal "workers" Union is?
Relying on employers to enforce 'terrorist' lists also evokes eerie echoes of our McCarthy-era past."
Right about now we need a "Joint Standing Congressional Committee on Un-American Activities" to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States against all enemies "domestic" like, for example, the ACLU.
Hiring terrorists makes them a terrorist organization.
Are you surprised?
No.
Nor am I appalled at the baldfaced hypocracy of the left,
the ends justify the means for them, as we continue to see
in the antics of the Democrat party.
"Vote for the Democrats, we're not REALLY democrats, we're
more like Republicans, mostly."
"It's the Republicans you should be worried about, they
are more like democrats every day!". ????
Savage is right, the ACLU needs to be investigated under RICO.
According to the Bush Doctrine, they sure can be. "We will make no distinction between terrorists and those who harbor them". Unlike Osama, the ACLU should be easy pickins.
ACLU = The Enemy Within™
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.