Quake3World

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/septem ... dcross.htm

The Red Cross, under the Liberty Fund, collected $564 million in donations after 9/11. Months after the event, the Red Cross had distributed only $154 million. The Red Cross' explanation for keeping the majority of the money was that it would be used to help 'fight the war on terror'. To the victims, this meant that the money was going towards bombing broken backed third world countries like Afghanistan and setting up surveillance cameras and expanding the police state in US cities, and not towards helping them rebuild their lives.

dunno about that story, but i've mentioned before that i will not donate a cent to the red cross for a variety of reasons.

The same thing happened after the Northridge earthquake in California, people gave a lot of money to the Red Cross but they only gave a portion of it to the quake victims, the rest they kept for their own purposes. It was a big scandal.

After the devastating San Francisco earthquake in 1989, the Red Cross passed on only $10 million of the $50 million that had been raised, and banked the rest

They seem to do this quite often, asswipes.

Isn't that something you might expect? If the cleanup for the earthquake ends up costing less than the amount received via donation, what can the Red Cross do other than retain that money or redirect it to another good cause?

I dunno, that makes sense to me. That way, even the little-publicised charity work stands a chance of funding.

But these disasters didn't cost $10 million to repair they cost billions so they withheld money that could of helped rebuild.

The Red Cross provides aid, it does not provide repairs.

What I mean is, the longer term aftermath isn't something I would expect the Red Cross to be involved in. Their goal is to provide help where time is a factor. Sure, the city will need rebuilding and many poor people will have a big problem in doing so, but I many donations come in with the intention of being used to solve the immediate problems (ones where lives are at risk), not the longer-term problem of rebuilding.

The mission statement as listed on the American Red Cross website is:
"The American Red Cross, a humanitarian organization led by volunteers and guided by its Congressional Charter and the Fundamental Principles of the International Red Cross Movement, will provide relief to victims of disasters and help people prevent, prepare for, and respond to emergencies."

I think giving their donations out to causes which fall outside of their own mission statement would be a recipe for disaster, and also that a charity organisation with such a broad mission statement can't afford to widen their goals further.

Yea, but aid could also be giving money to people who lost everything.

A lot of people who donate to Red Cross think that is exactly what they will do with it.

But when I consider what is meant by 'aid', I can't see handing money directly to people ever being part of that.

I think but I'm not sure: Isn't that what a releif fund is for?

I'm not very clear on the subject myself, as far as the differences between aid and relief funds.

But I personally feel that it's better to direct your money and know where it's going -- if you want to donate to victims of a disaster, then find a local community charity so you know where all the money is going and where it will be used.

Giving to the Red Cross is good for people who want to feel like they are helping - and in some amount they are. But there's really no telling where your money is going to wind up if you donate to such a large private organization.

Yeah agreed. The Red Cross serves well as a sort of 'safe' target for donations.

I understand where you are coming from Foo but Red Cross has never done enough for zero day relief efforts. The main argument is that they bank part of the money that's supposed to directly help the situation, and it appears they are never held accountable for it. It's been done at least a dozen times and not many people seems to notice.

Just google red dross scandal and you'll see what I mean.

Escoto allegedly gave herself at least $75,000 in bonuses. All told, prosecutors say the duo stole well over $1 million in Red Cross funds, squandering it on gambling and each other. Escoto pleaded not guilty. Lecowitch died after he was indicted.

"The bookkeeping methods of Mr. Lecowitch and Ms. Escoto leave a lot to be desired," says prosecutor Michael D'Andrea.

The New Jersey fiasco, in which donations and government grants were all stolen, happened right under the nose of Red Cross headquarters. Critics say the reason the Red Cross has so little control over its chapters is that the chapters are pulling the strings: they collect most of the donations, dominate the national board and resist tighter controls by headquarters.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/ ... 6700.shtml

Also they kept quite about the prison abuse in Iraq.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/ngos/credib ... essure.htm

"We can't comment on those pictures', came the reply. "But you've visited Abu Ghraib prison haven't you?" I asked. "We never discuss our prison visits."

It went on like this all week, more pictures were published - and still the Red Cross would not talk. Getting information out of the sphinx seemed a more likely possibility.

But the silence ended when the Red Cross' confidential report to the US government on conditions in Abu Ghraib was leaked to the media. Something close to panic broke out at Red Cross headquarters.

If you want your money to give aid to people never support Red Cross, they are corrupt to the core.

Thanks for the info, wasn't aware of the first and shamefully had forgotten about the second.