ACLU Pulls out of Federal Donation Program

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) stands to lose half a million dollars by pulling out of the Combined Federal Campaign which allows federal employees to give money to non-profit groups through payroll deduction. The ACLU gave their rationale in a press release on their website

"It is increasingly clear that the Patriot Act and the government's 'war on terror' are threatening the ability of America's non-profit charities to do their essential work," ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said in a letter to campaign director Mara Patermaster. "By requiring non-profit charities to check their employees against a 'black list' in order to receive donations from the CFC, you are furthering a climate of fear and intimidation that undermines the health and well-being of this nation."

More from CNN.com

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Re: ACLU Pulls out of Federal Donation Program

What a surprise: The ACLU offers no substantive reason for its action, but instead repeats the same tired, baseless accusations against the Bush administration....

A hollow publicity stunt.

Re: ACLU Pulls out of Federal Donation Program

What counts as a substantive reason for you? According to this July 31, 2004 news article, the ACLU is leaving CFC because the requirement to not knowingly hire members of terror organization includes a requirement to check several federal anti-terror lists. Accordingly to the article I cite, this is a real requirement and not a figment of the ACLU's imagination.Citing the inaccuracy of federal no-fly lists, the ACLU professes to be worried about denying employment to non-terrorists. Based on numerous accounts, the no-fly lists are in fact deeply flawed. I make no judgements about the accuracy of other gov't lists.To me, it doesn't seem like a bad idea to check people against the anti-terror lists, and if someone is a match, do some extra investigation. If they check out ok, then you've got the basis of another lawsuit against the feds. If they don't check out, then you've done the country a service.However, I don't condemn the ACLU for refusing money if they're not comfortable with checking names. That's freedom.

Re: ACLU Pulls out of Federal Donation Program

What counts as a substantive reason for you?

Certainly not the scattershot accusation that requiring charities to ensure that government disbursements not go to terrorist organizations is "furthering a climate of fear and intimidation that undermines the health and well-being of this nation."

That's what I call grandstanding and hysteria-mongering. But as we know, these are precisely the tactics that keep the donations coming in for the ACLU.

Re: ACLU Pulls out of Federal Donation Program

the same tired, baseless accusations

What about the tired, baseless accusations Bush makes about the non-existent Iraq/Al Qaida link? The non-existent NBC Weapons? The proclamation after proclamation of "threats" that never materialize? The fact that not one of the "terrorism suspects" rounded up in the mass arrests was ever convicted?

Oh! -- I know!

How about the baseless accusations against Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame? Remember her? Some member of the Bush administration committed what is probably a felony and an act of treason to punish this couple, because Wilson did not kiss Bush's ass and validate his baseless accusation that Hussein tried to get uranium from Niger.

Here's clue: the ACLU is no more required to accept federal funding than libraries are required to accept federal funding by installing censorware on public computers.

Re: ACLU Pulls out of Federal Donation Program

What about the tired, baseless accusations Bush makes about the non-existent Iraq/Al Qaida link?

Read much, Fang?

Re: ACLU Pulls out of Federal Donation Program

The Weekly Standard is not a news source. The 9/11 Commission, which has actually done real investigation, found repeated contacts over a period of years, utterly failing to lead to any operational cooperation between them.No operational cooperation. No Saddam-9/11 link. Contacts less substantial than numerous members of the current administration have had with Saddam, or than Reagan/Bush I administrations had with bin Laden.

This librarian says it is a "news" source

The Weekly Standard is not a news source

Eh???

How do you explain it's availability via Lexis Nexis Academic Universe under News? Now if we were discussing AlterNet, which is not indexed in any reputable periodical index that I am aware of, I would agree.

No attack help for al-Qaeda from Iraq

As indicated in Conclusion 96 of the Senate Intelligence Report.Also, a previous Weekly Standard story in 2003 claiming an operational relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda was disavowed by the Defense Department, which had EVERY incentive to confirm a positive link, and NONE whatsoever to disprove one.Do you have another source for this link?

Re:No attack help for al-Qaeda from Iraq

Do you have another source for this link?

Look, I didn't change the subject. If you folks don't want to talk about the ACLU, then I certainly don't blame you for that...

The Senate conclusion you point to concerns complicity in an Al Qaeda attack, which has never been asserted by anyone.

If you'll take a brief minute to look at Hayes' argument (I'm dreaming, I know), you'll find that he cites assertions of Iraqi-Al Qaeda contacts going back to the Clinton administration.

Re:This librarian says it is a "news" source

...AlterNet, which is not indexed in any reputable periodical index that I am aware of,...

Oh, geez! -- that is so hilarious I hurt myself laughing!

Really, Tomeboy, you absolutely have got to get a clue!

If you took two seconds to examine Alternet.org instead of mindlessly sneering at it, you might notice that the majority of articles posted there are actually reprints, and many of those articles come from -- do I dare admit it? -- mainstream sources.

The only real problem with Alternet and indy media sources is that they tell truths you don't like.

I mean, puhleeze! If it's not in Lexis Nexis then it doesn't exist or it's invalid if it does? HA!

I'm sure that you would make the perfect, little bureaucrat; the kind who would look somebody in the eye and tell them: I'm sorry, but you're dead. It says so right here in the computer.

Re:This librarian says it is a "news" source

If you took two seconds to examine Alternet.org instead of mindlessly sneering at it...

I guess being "progressive" on LISNews means you can be gratuitously abusive and still get moderated up....

Funny thing, though Fangy, because Alternet calls itself a "national online magazine," and also lists about a dozen columnists.

Re:This librarian says it is a "news" source

Part of being a librarian is not just knowing your shit, but knowing it when you see it. I make my living doing this. Alternet is trash. I don't give a flying hoot if they cut and paste their drivel from the National Enquirer or the Gardening Anarchist. It is still garbage. Which is exactly why you won't find it indexed by Lexis-Nexis, Ebsco, Proquest, OCLC, etc.. Yet you still can't seem to pull your thick noggin out from under the lid.

Your idiotic comment about something saying so here in the computer only serves to demonstrate to our LISNews colleagues the importance of bibliographic instruction for a Googleized world. How Alternetted sleuths like yourself ever made it through college pre-1990, assuming higher education was a part of your life, is a mystery.

We aren't talking about diet colas here Fang, or Eggo's and waffles, we are talking about information. VALUE ADDED, LEGITIMATE INFORMATION THAT DOESN'T COME FREE.

You get what you pay for friend. Which is why I choose an index like Lexis-Nexis, and you elect to keep your nose sniffing web puddles.

Re:This librarian says it is a "news" source

You don't pay for your access to Lexis-Nexus, your employer does.

And information is not validated by being listed at Lexis-Nexus, or just because it conforms to your political prejudices.

You and Bush would get along great; he doesn't read the newspapers either, but validates his "information" by who tells it to him and how much he likes it. Because of that, the towers came down.

Cheers.

Re:This librarian says it is a "news" source

You don't pay for your access to Lexis-Nexus (Sic), your employer does.

Zero relevance to our discussion about legitimacy here Fang. Zero.

But your six degrees to Bush is relevant for illustrating your logical thinking.

Syndicate content