Sunlight Seeker
Look up national or state donors or check where your Congresspeople are getting their money.
| January 2005 |
| Sun |
Mon |
Tue |
Wed |
Thu |
Fri |
Sat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
|
30
|
31
|
Liz Eisen - Thu 09 Oct 2008 02:12 PM CDT
Tojo8817 - Fri 03 Oct 2008 08:35 PM CDT
Marilyn Walker - Fri 03 Oct 2008 12:51 PM CDT
Brent - Mon 29 Sep 2008 02:55 PM CDT
audiored - Sat 27 Sep 2008 10:34 PM CDT
|
Saturday, January 29

Cold-hearted, Divisive Iowa State Senators Introduce Gay Marriage Ban
by
Linda Thieman
on Sat 29 Jan 2005 05:21 PM CST
Cold-hearted, Divisive Iowa State Senators Introduce Gay Marriage Ban
by Christina Butts
The new
legislative session has barely started and the remnant religious
far-right in the Iowa State Senate wants to begin divisive political
tactics instead of working for the future of the state. These tactics
are keeping Iowa from becoming an economic and socially
progressive state that will attract and retain business and young
adults. This type of game and tactic in a state that was proudly one of
the main 'free' states during the Underground Railroad harkens a step
back from Quaker-based liberty and freedoms for which our state's
Constitution has always stood. This seems to be strategically done the
week before Iowa Equality Day, February 3, for educating legislators on
LGBT civil/human rights issues, which will get positive media attention
and publicity. --Christina Butts
Thursday, January 27, 2005 -- Mason City Globe Gazette
GAY MARRIAGE BAN INTRODUCED, BUT UNLIKELY TO ADVANCE
By DAN GEARINO, Globe Des Moines Bureau
DES
MOINES - A state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage was
introduced by nine Republicans Wednesday in the Iowa Senate.
The
measure faces little chance of passage in a chamber tied 25-25 between
parties. A similar resolution fell short last year, a time when
Republicans held the majority.
"I still
feel the majority of Iowans think we need to keep marriage protected,"
said one of the co-sponsors, Sen. Bob Brunkhorst, R-Waverly.
The proposal would add the following sentence to the state constitution:
"Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in the state of Iowa."
Leaders
from both parties said before the session that hot-button social issues
would probably get little airing because of the even split between the
parties.
The
sponsors of the proposed amendment are the following Republican
senators: Jeff Angelo of Creston, Jerry Behn of Boone, Nancy Boettger
of Harlan, Brunkhorst, David Johnson of Ocheyedan, Jim Hahn of
Muscatine, Larry McKibben of Marshalltown, Paul McKinley of Chariton
and Jim Seymour of Woodbine.
Monday, January 24

INTELLIGENCE: Rumsfeld's Dirty Little Secret
by
Linda Thieman
on Mon 24 Jan 2005 09:41 PM CST
Intelligence: Rumsfeld's Dirty Little
Secret
American Progress
The Pentagon Hides Spy Unit from Congress
The Pentagon has secretly
been operating a
clandestine espionage branch for the past two years after reinterpreting
U.S. law to place more power directly in the hands of Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld. According to an explosive new article in yesterday's Washington
Post, the group, called the Strategic Support Branch, is "designed to operate
without detection and under the defense secretary's direct control" in
collecting human intelligence (or HUMINT, in intelligence-speak). Not only does
the group operate outside the public view, Rumsfeld has also hidden it from
Congress and is not coordinating with the CIA. Already, it has been operating in
places like Iraq and Afghanistan – as well as in unnamed "friendly countries"
with which the United States is not at war. The group has been working with the
elite U.S. Special Forces, such as Delta Force, as well as recruited outside
agents, including "notorious figures" whose "links to the U.S. government would
be embarrassing if disclosed." The Defense Department has also engaged in legal
tricks, redefining the rules to support its claims that the intelligence group
is subject to less stringent oversight than similar operations within the CIA.
Here's a look inside the Strategic Support Branch:
PLAYING GAMES WITH THE
LAW: Defense Department lawyers are hard at work redefining the rules to
give Secretary Rumsfeld more expansive powers and to get around any legal
constraints. Take Title
10 of the U.S. code, for example. While the Pentagon is legally required to
tell Congress about all "deployment orders," Undersecretary for Intelligence
Stephen A. Cambone this month issued new guidelines that state the group is
allowed to "conduct clandestine HUMINT operations…before publication" of a
deployment order, making the subsequent order meaningless. Title
50 got a friendly freshen-up as well: current law says Congress does not
have to be informed about "traditional" military activities and their "routine"
support, so the Pentagon's general counsel simply expanded the definition of
"traditional" and "routine."
RE-READING HERSH:
The Post article fits with the article written last week by Seymour
Hersh, which detailed the Pentagon's secret plans to go to war in Iran.
Hersh wrote, "[Bush] has signed a series of findings and executive
orders authorizing secret commando groups and other Special Forces
units to conduct covert operations against suspected terrorist targets
in as many as ten nations in the Middle East and South Asia… [Bush]'s
decision enables Rumsfeld to run the operations off the books—free from legal
restrictions imposed on the C.I.A."
WHO IS WALDROUP? The
secret intelligence group is headed up by Col. George Waldroup, a man with
little intelligence experience. Waldroup, who likes to refer to himself in the
third person as "GW," is not a graduate of the Army's Special Warfare Center nor
the CIA's Field Tradecraft Course for intelligence officers. He spent much of
his professional life as a "midlevel manager" at the Immigration and
Naturalization Service. He was embroiled
in scandal in the mid-'90s for deceiving a congressional delegation about
staffing problems at Miami International Airport. "Waldroup, then assistant
district director for external affairs, helped orchestrate a temporary doubling
of immigration screeners on the day of the visit, instructed subordinates not to
discuss staff shortages and physically confronted a union leader to prevent him
from reaching members of Congress." During the investigation, he then "refused
to disclose the password to his e-mail files, refused to sign an affidavit
summarizing his testimony and, in a subsequent interview, 'stated that he would
not answer any questions' because 'he wished to protect himself from exposure to
criminal sanctions.'"
A DANGEROUSLY
INEXPERIENCED TEAM: The Strategic Support Branch operatives are sent to work
directly with the military's elite Special Operations forces. One big problem:
Waldroup's team is staffed with members who lack crucial intelligence experience
and training. One military Special Forces officer who worked with the team said
one of Waldroup's men actually held his team back like an anchor "because of his
physical conditioning and his lack of knowledge of our tactics, techniques and
procedures. The guy actually put
us in danger." Another Special Forces officer in Afghanistan said Waldroup's
men were reluctant to leave the base to do their intel: "These guys can't set up
networks and run agents and recruit tribal elders."
SHHHH…DON'T TELL
CONGRESS: The Strategic Support Branch operated well below congressional
radar. The group was set up using funds siphoned off of other Pentagon projects
"without
explicit congressional authority or appropriation." The Post reported two
"longtime members" of the House Intelligence Committee were unaware of any
details surrounding the group. And on CBS's Face The Nation, Sen. John McCain, a
member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, called
yesterday for hearings to examine the group.
Monday, January 17

ACT Commemorates Dr. King by Shining Spotlight on Vote Fraud Aimed at African Americans
by
Linda Thieman
on Mon 17 Jan 2005 06:29 PM CST
ACT Commemorates Dr. King by Shining Spotlight on Vote Fraud Aimed at African Americans
America Coming Together
Some things haven't changed. It's time to ACT. Click here.
There
are so many powerful images from our country's long struggle for racial
and economic equality. Every history book has the same black and
white pictures -- from places like Alabama, Arkansas, and Tennessee.
So, as
we commemorate Dr. Martin Luther King today, I'd like to share some
equally powerful images of Election Day, 2004 -- from places like Ohio,
Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.
In
honor of Dr. King and the 40th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act,
please sign your name to our demand for electoral reform nationwide.
Join the fight. Send these images to everyone you know.
We're
just beginning to understand the impact of the aggressive campaign of
misinformation, repression and intimidation that was unleashed by
corrupt Republican officials and partisans in 2004. Here are just
a few examples (View the orginials by clicking here):
*In Lake County, Ohio,
a fake letter appearing to come from the Lake County Board of Elections
was sent to newly registered voters saying that registrations gathered
by progressive organizations (including ACT) are illegal and those
voters would not be able to vote.
*The week before the election,
flyers were circulated in Milwaukee under the heading "Milwaukee Black
Voters League" with some "warnings for election time" including that
anyone convicted of any offense, however minor, is ineligible to vote;
that any family member having been convicted of anything would
disqualify a voter; and that any violation of these warnings would
result in ten years in prison and a voter's children being taken away.
*A flyer designed to look like an official announcement
from McCandless Township in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, was
designed to misinform voters on a partisan basis. The flyer
claimed that "Due to the immense voter turnout that is expected on
Tuesday, November 2 the state of Pennsylvania has requested an extended
voting period" encouraging people to vote on November 3rd.
So,
with the dust settling on the 2004 elections, a much longer fight must
continue on the streets and in the precincts where too many voices went
unheard.
This
petition and the strength of ACT's ongoing field campaign will oppose
and defeat any corrupt federal, state, and local official who blocks
common sense efforts to ensure fairer voting in future elections.
Demand change today. Learn more here.
We will
not win by sending emails and airing television commercials. We
will only win by building strong organizations on the ground from
coast to coast. This is what ACT is doing in 2005.
ACT TOWN HALL MEETINGS PLANNED
Over the
coming weeks, ACT staff and volunteers will be organizing town hall
meetings to review the elections of 2004 and discuss our plans for the
future. This is your chance to help shape ACT's future and build
the volunteer organization needed to win in 2005 and beyond.
Currently, we are making plans for meetings in the following cities.
Columbus, OH - TBD
Los Angeles, CA - January 22
Milwaukee, WI - TBD
New York, NY - January 18 (*Capacity reached. More events soon.)
Philadelphia, PA - TBD
Phoenix, AZ - TBD
St. Louis, MO - TBD
More cities to be announced soon!
If you
are involved with a volunteer organization in another city that worked
with ACT in 2004 or looking to work with us in the future, please let
us know how we can support your continued efforts in 2005. Email volunteer@act4victory.org.
Sincerely,
Steve Rosenthal
CEO
America Coming Together
P.S. From National Journal's Charlie Cook, printed on January 11, 2005, on what went right in 2004:
"Democrats,
chiefly through America Coming Together, mounted what was not only the
most sophisticated get-out-the-vote operation in the party's history,
but it was probably the best field work by a factor of at least 10.
Merging the latest in technology with old-fashioned shoe leather,
Democrats not only met, but surpassed, their vote total targets in key
states such as Ohio and Florida. With voter turnout unexpectedly
climbing from 105 million in 2000 to 119 million in 2004 and a parallel
effort by the GOP that took them to startling heights of organization
as well, the Democratic GOTV operation was not quite good enough to
win, but it was awfully close."
Saturday, January 15

Can the FBI Monitor Your Web Browsing Without a Warrant?
by
Linda Thieman
on Sat 15 Jan 2005 07:25 AM CST
Can the FBI Monitor Your Web Browsing Without a Warrant?
EFFector Vol. 18, No. 2 January 14, 2005
EFF Demands Answers from DOJ about PATRIOT Act Surveillance
Washington,
DC - [Friday] the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the FBI and other
offices of the US Department of Justice, seeking the release of
documents that would reveal whether the government has been using the
USA PATRIOT Act to spy on Internet users' reading habits without a
search warrant.
At
issue is PATRIOT Section 216, which expanded the government's authority
to conduct surveillance in criminal investigations using pen registers
or trap and trace devices ("pen-traps"). Pen-traps
collect information about the numbers dialed on a telephone but do not
record the actual content of phone conversations. Because of this
limitation, court orders authorizing pen-trap surveillance are easy to
get - instead of having to show probable cause, the government need
only certify relevance to its investigation. Also, the government
never has to inform people that they are or were the subjects of
pen-trap surveillance.
PATRIOT expanded pen-traps to include devices that monitor Internet communications.
But the line between non-content and content is a lot blurrier online
than it is on phone networks. The DOJ has said openly that the
new definitions allow pen-traps to collect email and IP addresses.
However, the DOJ has not been so forthcoming about web
surveillance. It won't reveal whether it believes URLs can be
collected using pen-traps, despite the fact that URLs clearly reveal
content by identifying the web pages being read. EFF made its
FOIA request specifically to gain access to documents that might reveal
whether the DOJ is using pen-traps to monitor web browsing.
"It's
been over three years since the USA PATRIOT Act was passed, and the DOJ
still hasn't answered the public's simple question: 'Can you see
what we're reading on the Web without probable cause?'" said Kevin
Bankston, EFF Staff Attorney and Bruce J. Ennis Equal Justice Works
Fellow. "Much of PATRIOT is coming up for review this year, but
we can never have a full and informed debate of the issues when the DOJ
won't explain how it has been using these new surveillance powers."
The law
firm of DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary assisted EFF in preparing the FOIA
request and will help with any litigation if the DOJ fails to respond.
FOIA request:
http://www.eff.org/cgi/tiny?urlID=378
For this release:
http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2005_01.php#002213
Wednesday, January 12

Iowa Supreme Court to Hear Oral Argument Friday in Lesbian Civil Union Dissolution Case
by
Linda Thieman
on Wed 12 Jan 2005 04:19 PM CST
Iowa Supreme Court to Hear Oral Argument Friday in Lesbian Civil Union Dissolution Case
Lambda Legal
What: Oral arguments in Alons et al v. Iowa District Court for Woodbury County.
When: Friday, January 14, at 9 a.m.
Where: Iowa Supreme Court, 1111 East Court Avenue, Des Moines, Iowa.
[Observers and supporters are welcome, but please no protesting and no signs.]
We will
urge the court to recognize that disapproval of gay couples doesn't
give these groups or individuals the right to interfere in other
people's personal lives.
(Des Moines, January 11, 2005)
-- In oral argument set for Friday, January 14, at 9 a.m. at the Iowa
Supreme Court, Lambda Legal and local organizations will fend off an
attack by antigay groups who seek to overturn a local court order
granting two Sioux City women's request to terminate their civil union.
"We will
urge the court to recognize that disapproval of gay couples doesn't
give these groups or individuals the right to interfere in other
people's personal lives," said Camilla Taylor, Staff Attorney in Lambda
Legal's Midwest Regional Office, who will argue the case on Friday.
"A judge
in his rightful authority has already addressed this matter. Iowa
judges regularly resolve a wide range of matters between couples who
live together, regardless of the status of their relationship or
whether they're married. A handful of legislators and others have
tried to insinuate themselves into this particular case because this
time it involves two lesbians."
The two
women filed papers to dissolve their civil union in August of 2003. The
judge in their case noted that he was simply resolving a legal matter
between a couple as the state's courts routinely do.
In
February of 2004, a group of state legislators, a congressman and a
northwest Iowa church filed a petition to be heard by the Iowa State
Supreme Court. They filed a lawsuit asserting that the judge, Jeffrey
Neary in the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, lacked authority
to declare the rights of the two women and terminate their civil union,
and they asked the state high court to hear their case.
Lambda
Legal filed a friend-of-the-court brief last June, signed by the Iowa
Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU and the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and
Transgender Community Center of Central Iowa, that urged the court to
throw the case out. The brief argued that none of the parties involved
in the challenge have legal standing to interfere in the case because
they aren't harmed in any way by Judge Neary's decision. The brief also
pointed out that Iowa law permits a court to terminate a civil union,
so that the members of the couple can move on with their lives with
certainty about their legal rights, plan financially and start new
families.
Friday's
oral argument will focus on whether these anti-gay groups and inviduals
have the right to interfere with the trial court's authority to provide
necessary relief to this lesbian couple. In November, Iowans voted to retain Judge Neary, despite aggressive efforts by antigay groups to unseat him.
Lambda
Legal is a national organization committed to achieving full
recognition of the civil rights of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals,
transgender people and those with HIV through impact litigation,
education, and public policy work.
|
|