The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the nation's self-described "guardian of liberty" (http://www.aclu.org/about/aboutmain.cfm), was faced with a tough decision.

Although its website proclaims that it does not receive "any government funding," it does get money from a program that allows federal employees to make charitable contributions through payroll deductions. Last year it got $470,000 from the program. (The ACLU's 2002 annual budget, the most recent available, was $102 million.)

Now it had a choice: give up the money, or sign a promise certifying that the ACLU "does not knowingly employ individuals or contribute funds to organizations found on" government watch lists of suspected supporters of terrorism.

Trouble was, the ACLU had strongly opposed the lists, saying they were often inaccurate and violated the constitutional rights of some people.

But it really hated the idea of giving up the money.

So the ACLU chose to take the money AND keep hiring anyone it pleased irrespective of the lists. How? By applying what Nadine Strossen, the president of the ACLU board, described as "a very reasonable, certainly clever interpretation": they would simply remain totally ignorant of who was on the lists. Then it would be impossible to "knowingly" hire anyone on the lists, no matter who they hired.

Thus Anthony D. Romero, the ACLU's executive director, tells the New York Times: "I've printed [the lists] out. I've never consulted them."

He also submitted an article to the op-ed pages of the Times and The Wall Street Journal criticizing the certification requirement as "an insidious chill on speech" ... but not mentioning that the ACLU itself had signed the certification.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the director of the government program the money comes from, Mara T. Patermaster, disagrees with Mr. Romero's "clever" interpretation:

"We expect that the charities will take affirmative action to make sure they are not supporting terrorist activities. That would specifically include inspecting the lists. To just sign a certification without corroboration would be a false certification."

In response, Mr. Romero says: "On advice of counsel, we think our interpretation could be reasonable."

The ACLU's promise and related subjects were discussed at a contentious, all-day ACLU board meeting in San Francisco on July 9. The group's board has more than 80 members. A motion to rescind the promise was overwhelmingly rejected by a voice vote. ACLU officials said the debate would continue.

The above is based on a vastly more obscure article in the New York Times, which hates to offend anyone -- ACLU Board Is Split Over Terror Watch Lists, July 31, 2004. Portions of above text copied from the article.

On July 9, the ACLU held an all-day meeting of its 80-member board to discuss its trick promise to the federal government to not "knowingly" hire anyone on terrorism watch lists (and related subjects). Board members voted overwhelmingly against a motion to rescind the promise.

Then, July 31, the ACLU's ridiculous position was reported in the New York Times.

Before the day of this appalling exposure was out, the ACLU had rescinded its promise to the government (thus forgoing the $500,000 it had expected to receive this year from the federal charity drive that required the promise).

Attempting to evade its original folly and abdication of principle, the ACLU has compounded them with further absurd statements.

The ACLU's intent, when it pledged not to "knowingly" hire anyone on the watch lists, was to achieve hollow compliance by remaining thoroughly ignorant of who was listed. Now it says that what led to its reversal was the Times article's revelation that the government expected the ACLU to also look at the watch lists. Executive director Anthony D. Romero's letter to the government withdrawing from the program says the requirement of checking the lists "disturbed and surprised" him.

Above based on A.C.L.U. to Withdraw From Charity Drive, New York Times, August 1, 2004.