Sunday, August 1, 2004

Note to ACLU - Hoodwinked.  Bamboozled.  Led astray.  You've been had.  The ACLU has been dragged into the Patriot Act's labyrinth, according to the New York Times and NPR, bound by a signed agreement to screen their own employees against a list of known terrorists.  The document was signed as part of the agreement to join the Combined Federal Program, which allows federal employees to give money to designated charities.  (You may have a version of this deal at your own workplace through the United Way.) ACLU head Anthony Romero is saying that the document was ambiguous and, as he read it, it only obligated the ACLU to certify that it wasn't hiring known terrorists.   Specifically, it says that you don't ``knowingly employ individuals or contribute funds to organizations found'' on suspected-terrorist lists.   A passive commitment. The NY Times broke a story yesterday that charities that weren't actively screening for terrorists could be permanently barred from receiving money.  So the ACLU is pulling out.  NPR made much of the board members who didn't want to sign that particular document.  They even interviewed one board member who pooh-poohed Romero's claim that the document was ambiguous.  I didn't think this was fair:  any organization has board members who disagree with the executive staff on many things.   In my mind, the story is not that Romero wasn't doing his job.  The story is that the feds are inserting "anti-terrorist" language anywhere they can, in effect forcing non-profits to spy on their own employees.  As was pointed out, what happens if your name is mixed up with a name on the list.  Say,for example, your name is David Nelson?  The lists are bad, you can't remove your name without an act of Congress, and now the John Ashcroft squad is endangering the privacy and employment of hundreds of thousands of do-gooders. There are over 1600 organizations involved in the Combined Federal Campaign.  Innocuous groups like the YMCA, the Azheimer's Foundation, and the innocuous-sounding People with a Cause.  Some controversial organizations:  PETA, Planned Parenthood, Amnesty International.  And these organizations depend on the CFC for a significant part of their budget.  (I know:  my own organization is part of the State Combined Campaign in Washington state.)   This is the private money of federal employees:  not federal money, but the take-home paychecks of workers.  They have the right to do what they will with their money.  Now, every good-hearted charity enrolled in the CFC has become a list of potential bin Ladens.  And by threatening non-profits with loss of funds if they don't obey, they force compliance with another stupid subsection of the PATRIOT Act.  Just like state and local cops.  Just like bookstores and libraries.  It's certainly as effective as a SLAPP suit - losing even 1% or 5% of your budgeted income makes a massive difference in your ability to  do your job.  The ACLU is set to lose .5% of their budget, but that $500,000 is the salaries of 10-20 employees who'll have to be laid off.  10:33:33 AM     comment []