Reason Writers Around Town: Bill Flanigen on the ACLU's Hypocrisy on Terrorist Watch Lists

June 22, 2009

In today's New York Post, Reason's Bill Flanigen takes the ACLU to task for having it both ways on terrorist watch lists. A snippet:

In 2004, ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero signed the organization up for the Combined Federal Campaign—a government program that facilitates charitable giving by federal employees. Participation, [ACLU member and critic Wendy] Kaminer wrote, was expected to net the ACLU about $500,000 a year.

But the contract included a distressing requirement: The ACLU would have to check its employee rolls against federal watch lists.

It's already illegal to employ anyone on the government's Specially Designated Global Terrorists or Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons lists, but that doesn't mean that the ACLU had to volunteer compliance with those laws in exchange for money—specially when the ACLU was and remains concerned about the effect of watch lists on civil rights and liberties.

When the ACLU signed onto the CFC, it became complicit in government practices that its new report [which criticizes the CFC] says "are neither fair nor effective, and are undermining American values of due process and fairness."

Whole thing here.

Comments

|6.22.09 @ 9:49AM|#

pretty freaking bad.

|6.22.09 @ 10:11AM|#

The story speaks for itself. The ACLU should not be aligning itself with anything the federal government does, including this Combined Federal Campaign.

How about another american value being undermined? Imo, a bedrock american value is personal, hands-on charity. It is far more effective than throwing a couple of bucks to Big Charity-whether it be the United Way, the American Cancer Society or the Combined Federal campaign.

Dave Krueger|6.22.09 @ 10:21AM|#

Of all the non-profit organizations I've associated with, I get more mass mailings from the ACLU to raise cash than any of the others by at least an order of magnitude. Of course, there's nothing wrong with mass mailings, but I question whether my contribution is supporting the ACLU or the mass mailing industry.

My point is that I don't get a warm fuzzy feeling about the ACLU's thirst for funds even aside from their willingness to overlook conflicting principles if the price is right.

MNG|6.22.09 @ 10:24AM|#

In other news libertarians who oppose government constructed roads then DRIVE ON SAID ROADS!

Xeones|6.22.09 @ 10:25AM|#

In other news libertarians who oppose government constructed roads then DRIVE ON SAID ROADS!

Not me. Jetpack, dude.

MNG|6.22.09 @ 10:27AM|#

In yet more disturbing news, libertarian site that decries anti-liberty effect of current copyright law INVOKES SAID LAWS!

"©2009 Reason Magazine. All Rights Reserved."

Xeones|6.22.09 @ 10:32AM|#

In yet more disturbing news, libertarian site that decries anti-liberty effect of current copyright law INVOKES SAID LAWS!

That's why my personal blog is just copied'n'pasted Hit'n'Run. I'm not going to link to it though. You'll have to ask me about it in a video that is posted on YouTube.

|6.22.09 @ 10:40AM|#

"It's already illegal to employ anyone on the government's Specially Designated Global Terrorists or Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons lists, but that doesn't mean that the ACLU had to volunteer compliance with those laws in exchange for money-specially when the ACLU was and remains concerned about the effect of watch lists on civil rights and liberties."

This is a dumbass statement. The ACLU doesn't have to "volunteer compliance" with the law? What the hell does that mean? Are they supposed to hire Bin Laden in order to test the waters?

By this faulty logic, isn't it hypocritical of the NRA not to have a stockpile of heavy machine guns, bazookas or tanks? How dare the NRA "volunteer compliance" with laws they don't believe are constitutional!!

|6.22.09 @ 10:49AM|#

Lamar, I see your point; however, your NRA example may not be the best as the text of the second amendment itself does not contain any exceptions for bazookas or tanks and therefore, if, the NRA is stockpiling said arms in contravention to a federal firearms statute, the organization is within the safe harbor of the plain meaning of the second amendment and that trumps the statute.

|6.22.09 @ 11:03AM|#

In yet more disturbing news, libertarian site that decries anti-liberty effect of current copyright law INVOKES SAID LAWS!

MNG, you are ignoring the "present company excluded, of course" aspect of polite company.

That said, I already have to pay for roads, so why not use them? Not the same for the ACLU asking for federal funds.

And I support copyright.

MNG|6.22.09 @ 11:13AM|#

The ACLU is supposed to forego this fundraising opportunity because it includes provisions which they have opposed, but libertarians are not supposed to forego laws and programs that they oppose? Come on.

MNG|6.22.09 @ 11:15AM|#

They are asking for federal workers to donate to them if I'm reading the above correctly, but this also is in my favor. If an organization opposes some conditions of grants upon which they exist, are they to forego the grants until the provision is changed?

tarran|6.22.09 @ 11:27AM|#

MNG,

Let's say the law was a Jim Crow Law, something like a law forbidding the ACLU from hiring black people unless they had a separate bathroom.

Let us further posit that as a condition for receiving the money, the ACLU had to certify they were complying with the law.

Let us finally posit that the ACLU opposed segregation and had been outspoken against the law.

If it were to turn out that they were installing separate bathrooms to comply with the law, would you call them out as being hippocrites? Or would you be mocking the people calling them out?

You treat the money as being string free. However, government money always comes with strings. Something that schools which seek refuse to permit discrimination against gays fount out the hard way. By modifying its policies to gain favor and funding from the government, the ACLU is fatally weakening its independence.

|6.22.09 @ 11:33AM|#

Tarran, where oh where is this "string free" money you speak of? Is it made from the fibers of a unicorn's mane?

|6.22.09 @ 11:48AM|#

Elsewhere, caucasian liberals who support complusory busing for public schools send their children to private schools with nary a negro.

|6.22.09 @ 11:50AM|#

Anybody who buys a GM or Chrysler in the next year needs to prove that they voted for Obama.

|6.22.09 @ 1:10PM|#

Anybody who buys a GM or Chrysler in the next year needs to prove that they voted for Obama.

Won't happen. Liberals drive Hondas.

impolite company|6.22.09 @ 1:24PM|#

joe was more fun.

|6.22.09 @ 1:28PM|#

and he drove a Honda...

imp|6.22.09 @ 1:36PM|#

...and was always grateful for speeding tickets, since they helped save lives in multiple ways (by paying for terrific government pogroms programs).

|6.22.09 @ 1:56PM|#

"Won't happen. Liberals drive Hondas."

Conservatives are out of their Element.

|6.23.09 @ 9:50AM|#

I expect Bill and the Post will be running a correction on this story. What Bill fails to mention is his attack on the ACLU is that the ACLU withdrew from the CFC because of concerns from its policy-making board until the qualifications for the CFC were changed. Somehow, in Bill's and the NY Post's (no surprise there) honest pursuit of truth, they seem to have left out a pesky detail like that.

http://foundationcenter.org/pnd/news/story.jhtml?id=75300046

|6.23.09 @ 10:32AM|#

"Somehow, in Bill's and the NY Post's (no surprise there) honest pursuit of truth, they seem to have left out a pesky detail like that."

The truth is that Bill Flanigen and The NY Post hate the ACLU no matter what they do. This story accurately reflects that truth.