In a Sharply Divided 5-4 Ruling, Justices Say ‘No’ to Christian Student Group’s Demand That It Be Recognized and Funded by Public, Taxpayer-Funded Law School Despite Group’s Refusal to Admit Gays and Non-Christian Believers in Defiance of the School’s Anti-Discrimination Policy

DRAWING THE LINE — A sharply divided Supreme Court on Monday refused to breach the constitutional wall of separation between religion and government when the justices, by a 5-4 majority, rejected a private Christian student group’s demand that it be officially recognized and funded by the public, taxpayer-financed Hastings College of the Law of the University of California, in spite of the group’s refusal to admit gays and non-Christian religious believers. The justices sided with the law school’s policy that bars official recognition and funding to student groups that do not comply with the college’s requirement that they be open to all students without discrimination. (Photo courtesy supremecourtus.gov)

(Posted 5:00 a.m. EDT Tuesday, June 29, 2010)

By SKEETER SANDERS

A day after hundreds of thousands of spectators lined San Francisco’s Market Street to watch the city’s 40th annual Gay Pride Parade, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday sided with a San Francisco-based public law school’s refusal to recognize or fund a Christian student group that refused to admit gays and non-Christian religious believers as members.

On the final day of its 2009-10 term, the justices, in a sharply-divided 5-4 decision, ruled that the Christian Legal Society could not expect to receive official recognition or funding from the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law if it refused to comply with the school’s anti-discrimination policy.

The justices declared that the First Amendment did not require the public college to sanction the private group’s membership policies based on its religious beliefs. While the court did not explicitly say so, its ruling strongly implied that granting such sanction would have violated the constitutional wall of separation between church and state.

CHRISTIAN GROUP’S DISCRIMINATORY CONDUCT — NOT ITS BELIEFS — AT ISSUE, SAYS GINSBURG

Writing for the court majority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg rejected claims by the Christian Legal Society that the law school’s anti-discrimination policy violated its First Amendment right to the free exercise of its religious beliefs and freedom of association.

To the contrary, Hastings’ anti-discrimination policy “ensures that no Hastings student is forced to fund a group that would reject him or her as a member,” Ginsburg wrote. “It is the CLS’s conduct, not its Christian perspective, [that] is, from Hastings’ viewpoint, what stands between the group” and recognition by the law school.

“In requiring the CLS — in common with all other student organizations — to choose between welcoming all students and forgoing the benefits of official recognition, we hold, Hastings did not transgress constitutional limitations,” Ginsburg wrote.

Colleges and universities, both public and private, fund student groups through activity fees directly charged to students, in addition to their tuition, room and board, and other expenses. For student groups at Hastings to receive official recognition and funding from the school, they must be open to all students, without regard to race, ethnicity, religion, gender, disability or sexual orientation.

Ginsburg — who read the majority opinion in the court’s chamber even as she was mourning the death Sunday of her husband, Martin Ginsburg, from complications of metastatic cancer at the age of 78 — was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and — on his last day before his retirement — John Paul Stevens.

The Hastings College of the Law currently recognizes about 60 student groups, including the Hastings Association of Muslim Law Students, the Hastings Catholic Law Students Association, the Black Law Students Association, the Hastings Jewish Law Students Association and even Hastings OutLaw, a group formed by Hastings students who are openly gay.

All have provisions in their bylaws, as required under the school’s nondiscrimination policy, that membership is open to any full-time student at Hastings, but the Christian Legal Society is the only student group at Hastings that requires its members to strictly adhere to its religious principles.

GROUP’S ‘STATEMENT OF FAITH’ BARS GAYS, NON-CHRISTIANS

The CLS, a nearly half-century-old, Illinois-based national organization with chapters on 40 college campuses across the country, effectively bars gay men, lesbians and bisexuals from membership by requiring that all its members and officers affirm its “Statement of Faith,” which includes the belief that “Christians should not engage in sexual conduct outside of a marriage between a man and a woman.”

A resolution passed by the CLS board was even more explicit: “Unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle is inconsistent with an affirmation of the Statement of Faith,” the resolution said. “We condemn all acts of sexual conduct outside of God’s design for marriage between one man and one woman, including fornication, adultery and homosexual conduct.”

The group’s “Statement of Faith” also effectively bars non-Christian believers by explicitly stating that “all officers, directors, members, advisory council members, and staff of CLS shall, as a condition of their employment or membership in CLS, acknowledge in writing their acceptance of . . .the Deity of our Lord, Jesus Christ, God’s only Son, conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary; His vicarious death for our sins through which we receive eternal life; His bodily resurrection and personal return.”

JUSTICE KENNEDY: ‘STATEMENT OF FAITH’ AKIN TO COLD WAR-ERA LOYALTY OATHS

In a concurring opinion, Justice Kennedy wrote that the CLS’s Statement of Faith amounted to a “loyalty oath” reminiscent of the kind that was imposed on federal government agencies during the Cold War era by President Harry Truman.

“The era of loyalty oaths is behind us,” Kennedy wrote. “A school quite properly may conclude that allowing an oath or belief-affirming requirement, or an outside conduct requirement, could be divisive for student relations and inconsistent with the basic concept that a view’s validity should be tested through free and open discussion.”

In his final opinion before stepping down, Justice Stevens wrote that while the CLS is free under the First Amendment to determine who can and cannot be members, a public university is not required by the First Amendment “to validate or support” the group’s “discriminatory” practices.

“Other groups may exclude or mistreat Jews, blacks and women — or those who do not share their contempt for Jews, blacks and women,” Stevens wrote. “A free society must tolerate such groups. It need not, however, subsidize them, give them its official imprimatur, or grant them equal access to law school facilities.”

ALITO RIPS DECISION AS ‘SETBACK FOR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION’ — CLS DEFIANT

In a hard-hitting dissenting opinion, Justice Samuel Alito blasted the court majority, denouncing their ruling as “a serious setback for freedom of expression in this country.”

Writing for the court’s four conservatives, Alito cited the long-held judicial principle that “we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate.’ Today’s decision rests on a very different principle: No freedom for expression that offends prevailing standards of political correctness in our country’s institutions of higher learning.”

Alito’s opinion was co-signed by Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice John Roberts.

The CLS — backed by the Alliance Defense Fund, one of several conservative groups defending California’s Proposition 8, which bars same-gender marriage — issued a defiant statement in response to the high court’s ruling, insisting that Hastings’ anti-discrimination policy was “unusual,” that the court “confined its opinion to the unique policy” and that the justices “did not address” whether other public colleges and universities with similar nondiscrimination policies are free to enforce them.

“All college students, including religious students, should have the right to form groups around shared beliefs without being banished from campus,” Kim Colby, senior counsel at the CLS’s Center for Law & Religious Freedom, said in the statement. “Today’s ruling, however, will have limited impact. We are not aware of any other public university that has the exact same policy as Hastings.”

LAWYER FOR CONSERVATIVE GROUP SAYS RULING ‘DOESN’T SETTLE CONFLICT’

Gregory Baylor, senior legal counsel at the Alliance Defense Fund, said the ruling “doesn’t settle the core constitutional issue of whether nondiscrimination policies in general can force religious student groups to allow non-believers to lead their groups. The conflict still exists.” In the long run, Baylor said, the decision “puts other student groups across the country at risk.”

Baylor insisted that the Hastings policy “actually requires CLS to allow atheists to lead its Bible studies and the College Democrats to accept the election of Republican officers in order for the groups to be recognized on campus. We agree with Justice Alito in his dissent that the court should have rejected this as absurd.”

Baylor’s argument was flatly rejected by the Reverend Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. “Religious discrimination is wrong, and a public school should be able to take steps to eradicate it,” Lynn told The Associated Press. “Today’s court ruling makes it easier for colleges and universities to do that. It’s a huge step forward for fundamental fairness and equal treatment.”

# # #

Copyright 2010, Skeeter Sanders. all rights reserved.

A Ruling Is Expected by the Fall on Lawsuit Challenging Federal Constitutionality of Voter-Approved Measure Barring Gay and Lesbian Couples From Marrying, But No Matter Which Way Judge Vaughn Walker Decides, a Final Showdown in the U.S. Supreme Court is All But Inevitable

HOW WILL HE DECIDE? — Vaughn Walker, chief judge of the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, is expected in the next few weeks to hand down a ruling on a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8, a voter-approved amendment to the California Constitution that bars gay and lesbian couples from marrying. Closing arguments in the closely-watched case were made last week. Some supporters of Prop. 8 are making an issue of the fact — revealed by the San Francisco Chronicle in February — that Judge Walker, a conservative appointed to the court in 1989 by President George H.W. Bush, is himself gay. But no matter which way Walker decides, the losing side is certain to appeal, setting the stage for a final showdown in the U.S. Supreme Court. (Photo: Mike Linksvayer via Flickr)

(Posted 5:00 a.m. EDT Tuesday, June 22, 2010)

By SKEETER SANDERS

As millions of lesbian women, gay men, bisexuals and transgenders prepare to march in celebratory pride parades all across the United States and around the world this weekend, many will be casting an eye on a federal judge in San Francisco as he prepares to issue a long-awaited ruling in a closely-watched constitutional challenge to California’s voter-approved Proposition 8, which bars gay and lesbian couples from marrying.

Vaughn Walker, the chief judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, heard closing arguments last week in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which many legal experts predict will be a landmark case going all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

During the proceedings, Walker repeatedly pressed attorneys on both sides with pointed questions on what interest is served by the state determining who can and cannot marry and on the motivations of the voters in passing the measure.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is named as the defendant in the lawsuit, refused to defend the measure. State Attorney General Jerry Brown, who is the Democratic candidate to succeed the Republican Schwarzenegger in November’s gubernatorial election, also refused to defend Prop. 8. As a result, several religious and conservative groups intervened in the measure’s defense.

Defenders of Prop. 8 — an amendment to the California Constitution — argued that its purpose was to preserve marriage as “an institution intended to promote childbearing.”

Opponents of Prop. 8 — which passed with 54 percent of the vote in November 2008 — countered with Loving v. Virginia, the landmark 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision that declared marriage to be a fundamental constitutional right guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment and struck down laws in 16 states that barred interracial marriages.

A ruling is expected by the fall. But no matter which way Judge Walker decides, it will almost certainly be appealed, setting the stage for a final showdown in the Supreme Court.

OLSON: FEARS OF DAMAGE TO OPPOSITE-GENDER MARRIAGES UNFOUNDED

Former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson, the lead attorney representing two same-gender couples challenging Prop. 8, argued that claims of marriage being a tradition whose primary purpose is to bear children and that allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry damages the marriages of heterosexual couples are not sufficient grounds to bar them from doing so.

“‘We have always done it that way’ is a corollary to ‘Because I say so,’” Olson told Judge Walker. “It’s not a reason. You can’t have constitutional discrimination in public schools because you have always done it that way,” referring to government-imposed racial segregation in public schools that the Supreme Court outlawed in 1954.

COOPER: HETEROSEXUALS-ONLY MARRIAGE ‘FUNDAMENTAL TO SURVIVAL OF HUMAN RACE’

Former U.S. Justice Department attorney Charles Cooper, the lead attorney representing religious and conservative groups that sponsored Prop. 8, countered that the primary purpose of marriage is the raising of children and that definition is “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the human race.” He argued that “children do best when they are raised by their own mother and father.”

Cooper denounced as a “slur on the seven million Californians who supported Proposition 8″ the plaintiff’s argument that “there is no way to understand why anyone would support Proposition 8, would support the traditional definition of marriage, except through some irrational or dark motivation.”

BOTH SIDES IGNORE CHURCH-STATE IMPLICATIONS OF PROP. 8

Neither side addressed a broader constitutional issue raised by Prop. 8 and other laws that bar gay and lesbian couples from marrying — an issue that The ‘Skeeter Bites Report has raised repeatedly: The separation of church and state.

This column has argued again and again and again that Prop. 8 and all similar laws, including the federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, enshrine into state and federal law a religious doctrine that condemns homosexuality as a sin that must be suppressed — a violation of both the Establishment of Religion Clause of the First Amendment and the Religious Test Clause of Article VI of the Constitution.

In the seven years since the Supreme Court fully decriminalized same-gender sexual relations in its 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision that struck down the nation’s last remaining anti-sodomy laws, there has been — and is — no legal justification whatsoever to continue to bar gay and lesbian couples from marrying, since their relationships are no longer illegal.

That point was made clear by no less an authority than conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who, in his blistering dissenting opinion in the Lawrence case, wrote, “State laws against . . . same-sex marriage . . . [are] called into question by today’s decision. The Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding.”

If Scalia is right — and The ‘Skeeter Bites Report strongly believes that he is in this case — then every argument to bar gay and lesbian couples from marrying is inextricably rooted in religious approbations against homosexuality, which cannot constitutionally be used in court. The supporters of Proposition 8 and similar laws know this all too well, yet they plod on anyway, despite the Lawrence decision having effectively pulled the legal rug out from under their arguments.

CIVIL MARRIAGE AND RELIGIOUS MATRIMONY ARE NOT THE SAME THING

Lest anyone forget, the Yes on 8 campaign was heavily bankrolled by several conservative churches, most notably the Utah-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints — better known as the Mormon Church — and the Reverend Rick Warren’s southern California-based Saddleback Church, which made headlines during the 2008 presidential campaign as the venue for a forum on faith and politics in which then-candidates John McCain and Barack Obama participated.

Contrary to the long-held assertions of religious conservatives, the civil institution of marriage is not “a holy gift from God.” They have confused the state institution of civil marriage with the religious sacrament of holy matrimony.

It is the sacrament of holy matrimony, the exclusive province of religion, that is the “holy gift from God,” completely separate from civil marriage, the exclusive province of the state.

Conservative religious institutions that oppose homosexuality have every right under the First Amendment to deny the sacrament of holy matrimony to gay and lesbian couples in accordance with their religious doctrine. But they have no constitutional right to seek to have the state deny civil marriage to gay and lesbian couples. It is clearly not their place to do so.

Nor do all religious institutions condemn homosexuality. To the contrary, many other religious institutions are openly supportive of gay men and lesbians — with some even according the sacrament of “holy union” to gay and lesbian couples.

JUDGE WALKER A CONSERVATIVE WITH A STRONG INDEPENDENT STREAK

Judge Walker, appointed to the district court in 1989 by President George H.W. Bush and elevated to chief judge of the court in 2004 by President George W. Bush, is widely seen by court observers as a conservative jurist with a strong independent streak.

Originally nominated for the district court in 1987 by President Ronald Reagan, Walker’s nomination was stalled for two years by Senate Democrats who objected to his membership in an all-male private club and to his having been the attorney representing the International Olympic Committee and the U.S. Olympic Committee in its 1982 copyright-infringement lawsuit against the organizers of the first Gay Games in San Francisco, originally dubbed the “Gay Olympics.”

Two dozen House Democrats, led by now-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California), whose district includes San Francisco, opposed Walker’s nomination because of his alleged “insensitivity” to gays while representing the IOC and USOC.

(The Olympic committees and the Federation of Gay Games (FoGG) have since made peace with one another and have worked cooperatively together, successfully lobbying to have travel restrictions on HIV-positive athletes waived for the 1994 Gay Games in New York, the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta and the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. The 2010 Gay Games will take place July 31-August 6 in Cologne, Germany; Cleveland will host the 2014 Gay Games).

Judge Walker has demonstrated having a libertarian streak in cases involving individual rights, ruling that the federal government’s controversial post-9/11 warrantless wiretapping program was unconstitutional. He has also issued rulings in two previous cases on the on the civil and constitutional rights of LGBTs that have been interpreted as being pro-gay.

In one case, Judge Walker ruled that the First Amendment free-speech rights of two city employees in Oakland, California were not violated when when managers removed a bulletin board flier for a religious group that promoted “natural family, marriage and family values.”

In another, Walker dismissed a lawsuit brought by the parents of a California boy against a local school district that claimed their First Amendment religious rights were violated by comments their son’s teacher had made in the classroom supporting LGBT civil rights.

CONSERVATIVES ATTACK JUDGE’S IMPARTIALITY AFTER NEWSPAPER ‘OUTS’ HIM AS GAY

Throughout the trial on the constitutionality of Prop. 8, Judge Walker asked a lot of tough questions to the attorneys on both sides of the issue. And given Walker’s past representation as an attorney of the IOC and USOC in the 1982 copyright case against the Gay Games, no one can realistically call Walker a “pushover” on LGBT-related issues.

Yet when the San Francisco Chronicle revealed in February that Judge Walker is himself gay, conservatives were quick to demand that Walker recuse himself from the case.

Ed Whelan, a columnist for the conservative National Review magazine writing on its online edition that “Walker’s entire course of conduct has only one sensible explanation: that Walker is hellbent to use the case to advance the cause of same-sex marriage. Given his manifest inability to be impartial, Walker should have recused himself from the beginning, and he remains obligated to do so now.”

That prompted the Chronicle to fire back with an editorial asserting that “A judge’s sexual orientation does not inherently shade his ability to read and interpret the U.S. Constitution with clear-eyed wisdom. Assuming this case advances on appeal, no matter how [Judge] Walker rules, there almost certainly will be jurists who will need to set aside their religion’s teachings — and, quite likely, the impact of their ruling on close friends or even a family member — as they do their utmost to uphold the meaning of the Constitution.”

In fairness to the Chronicle, Judge Walker never kept his being gay a secret, so the newspaper cannot be accused of “outing” him against his will. But he’s never boasted about it either, thus the Chronicle’s disclosure did come as a surprise to many.

That the Prop. 8 case will ultimately land in the Supreme Court is beyond doubt — indeed, it’s inevitable. So the fact of Judge Walker being gay really is of no consequence to the final outcome of this case.

# # #

Copyright 2010, Skeeter Sanders. All rights reserved.

Dissenting Officials Inside Spy Agency Say That Remote Air Strikes With Predator Drones Against Suspected Al-Qaida Operatives in Pakistan are ‘Doing More Harm Than Good’ by Boosting Recruitment of New Jihadist Militants Into Ranks of Al-Qaida, Taliban

UNDER FIRE — The use by the Central Intelligence Agency of unmanned, remote-controlled Predator attack drones, such as the one photographed above, against suspected al-Qaida operatives in Pakistan is drawing new criticism from an unlikely source: Dissenting CIA officials involved in the strikes, who argue that the attacks are “counterproductive” and resulting in making it easier for al-Qaida and its Taliban allies to recruit new militants into its ranks. (Photo Courtesy U.S. Air Force)

(Posted 5:00 a.m. EDT Tuesday, June 8, 2010)

===============
SPECIAL REPORT
===============

By GARETH PORTER
Inter-Press Service
(Published under a Creative Commons license)

Some Central Intelligence Agency officers involved in its drone strikes program in Pakistan and elsewhere are privately expressing their opposition to the program within the agency, because it is helping al-Qaida and its Taliban allies recruit new jihadist militants, according to a retired military officer in contact with them.

“Some of the CIA operators are concerned that, because of its blowback effect, it is doing more harm than good,” said Jeffrey Addicott, former legal adviser to U.S. Special Forces and director of the Center for Terrorism Law at St Mary’s University in San Antonio, Texas, in an interview with Inter-Press Service.

Addicott said the CIA operatives he knows have told him the drone strikes are being used effectively by al-Qaida and Taliban leaders to recruit more militants.

CIA officers “are very upset” with the drone strike policy, Addicott said. “They’ll do what the boss says, but they view it as a harmful exercise. They say we’re largely killing rank and file Pakistani Taliban, and they are the ones who are agitated by the campaign.”

ATTACKS KILLING CIVILIANS,’INFURIATING’ MUSLIM MEN INTO BECOMING JIHADISTS

Because the drone strikes kill innocent civilians and bystanders along with leaders from far away, they “infuriate the Muslim male”, said Addicott, thus making them more willing to join the movement. The men in Pakistan’s tribal region “view Americans as cowards and weasels,” he added.

Addicott retired from the U.S. Army as a lieutenant colonel in 2000 after serving for six years as senior legal adviser to the Special Operations Forces but is still a consultant for the U.S. military on issues of terrorism and law.

Addicot said the CIA officers expressing concern about the blowback effects of the drone policy are “mid-grade and below.”

They learned about the impact of drone strikes on recruiting by extremist leaders in Pakistan from intelligence gathered by CIA and the National Security Agency, which intercepts electronic communications, according to Addicott.

They have informed high-level CIA officials about their concerns that the program is backfiring. “The people at the top are not believers,” said Addicott, referring to the CIA. “They know that the objective is not going to be achieved.”

DISSENTING CIA OFFICERS’ CONCERNS CONFIRM 2009 WARNINGS

The complaints by CIA operatives about the drone strikes’ blowback effect reported by Addicott are identical to warnings by military and intelligence officials reported in April 2009 by the McClatchy News Service.

McClatchy quoted an intelligence official with deep involvement in both Afghanistan and Pakistan as saying al-Qaida and the Taliban had used the strikes in propaganda to “portray Americans as cowards who are afraid to face their enemies and risk death.” The official called the operations “a major catalyst” for the jihadi movement in Pakistan.

A military official involved in counterterrorism operations told McClatchy the drone strikes were a “recruiting windfall for the Pakistani Taliban.”

DRONE ATTACKS IN AFGHANISTAN, YEMEN AND ELSEWHERE ALSO UNDER FIRE

The CIA operatives’ opposition to the drone strikes program extends to Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia and Sudan, all of which now have confirmed deaths from drone strikes, according to Addicott.

The official goal of the geographical expansion of drone strikes is to destroy or disrupt al-Qaida. But al-Qaida today is less a major organization than “a mentality” in most Middle Eastern countries, Addicott said, and the CIA officers fear that the strikes will only reinforce that way of thinking.

BEGUN UNDER BUSH, DRONE STRIKE EXPANDED UNDER OBAMA

Addicott said the drone program has been driven by President Obama, rather than by the CIA. “Obama’s trying to show people that we’re winning,” he added.

The program was originally authorized by President George W. Bush against a relatively short list of high-level al-Qaida officials, and with highly restrictive conditions on approval of each strike. The strike could not be approved unless the target was identified with high confidence, and a complete assessment of “collateral damage” had to ensure against significant civilian casualties.

In early 2008, however, Bush approved the removal of previous restraints. As recounted by David Sanger in his 2009 book, The Inheritance, Bush authorized strikes against targets merely based on visual evidence of a “typical” al-Qaida motorcade or a group entering a house that had been linked to al-Qaida or its Pakistani Taliban allies.

As a top national security aide to Bush acknowledged to Sanger, the shift was “risky” because, “you can hit the wrong house or mistakenly misidentify the motorcade.”

It also meant that anyone who could be linked in some way to al-Qaida, the Taliban or “associated forces” could now be targeted for drone attacks.

OBAMA STRATEGY TO ‘DEMORALIZE’ AL-QAIDA WITH DRONE STRIKES FAILING

The Obama administration has continued to justify the program as aimed at high-value targets, suggesting that it can degrade al-Qaida as an organization by a “decapitation” strategy, according to Addicott. However administration officials now privately admit that the objective of the program is to “demoralize the rank and file,” he said.

That won’t work, according to Addicott, because, “These are tribal people. They don’t view life and death the way we expect them to.”

In effect, the drone strikes program has become an “attrition” strategy for Pakistan, Addicott said.

Such a strategy in Pakistan’s tribal regions appears to be futile. Madrasas in the region have churned out tens of thousands of young men with militant views, and their activities are spread across hundreds of sites in the region.

ATTACKS SEEN BY ADMINISTRATION AS ‘GETTING RESULTS’

Within the Obama administration, it appears that the logic behind the program is that it has to be seen to be doing something about al-Qaida. “The argument I get from people associated with the program,” said Micah Zenko, a fellow in conflict prevention at the Council on Foreign Relations, “is the same as the one [CIA Director Leon] Panetta gave last year.”

“Very frankly,” Panetta declared on May 18 of last year, “it’s the only game in town in terms of confronting or trying to disrupt the al-Qaida leadership.”

Zenko, who has studied the bureaucratic in-fighting surrounding such limited uses of military force, told IPS that the drone strikes have appealed to the Obama administration because they offer “clear results that are obtained quickly and are easily measured.”

All the other tools that might be used to try to reduce al-Qaida’s influence in Pakistan and elsewhere take a long time, require cooperation among multiple actors and have no powerful political constituency behind them, Zenko observed.

Dissent from those who are involved in the program itself has little effect when it is up against what is perceived as political pressure to show progress against al-Qaida — no matter how illusory.

# # #

Special Report Copyright 2010, Inter-Press Service. Reposted under a Creative Commons license.
The ‘Skeeter Bites Report Copyright 2010, Skeeter Sanders. All rights reserved.

The Libertarian GOP Congressman From Texas Cast the Sole ‘No’ Vote on a 2004 Resolution Celebrating the 40th Anniversary of the Landmark 1964 Anti-Discrimination Law; Meanwhile, in Interview on Russian TV, Rand Paul Calls For Stripping Illegal Immigrants’ American-Born Children of Their Constitutionally-Protected Birthright of U.S. Citizenship

Tea Party-backed Kentucky Republican U.S. Senate nominee Rand Paul (right) isn’t the only libertarian who’s taken a dim view toward Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and other public accommodations. His father, Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas) (left), is even more vehement in his opposition to Title II — so much so that he was the only member of Congress who voted against a 2004 resolution celebrating the landmark law on its 40th anniversary. Meanwhile, in an interview on Russian television, Rand Paul called for stripping the American-born children of illegal immigrants of their U.S. citizenship — despite the fact that the Constitution guarantees citizenship for all persons born in this country. (Photos courtesy House.gov and Politico.com)

(Posted 5:00 a.m. EDT Tuesday, June 1, 2010)

By SKEETER SANDERS

Like father, like son.

It turns out that Rand Paul, the Tea Party-backed Republican nominee for the Kentucky U.S. Senate seat now held by the retiring Republican Jim Bunning, isn’t the only member of his family who has argued that Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act wrongfully interferes with the internal affairs of private businesses and property owners.

So does his father, Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas), who ran unsuccessfully for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination.

In fact, the elder Paul’s opposition to Title II — which outlaws discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce — is so intense that he was the only member of Congress to vote against a 2004 congressional resolution honoring the landmark anti-discrimination law on the 40th anniversary of its passage.

Ron Paul stunned even his Republican colleagues when he delivered a speech on the House floor denouncing the Civil Rights Act, insisting that, contrary to the claims of its supporters, “the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the [law] increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.”

Meanwhile, Rand Paul, who’s maintained a low profile after igniting a firestorm of outrage on May 19 when he told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow that he, too, opposed the law’s ban on discrimination by private businesses, is in hot water again, this time for telling a Russian TV interviewer that the American-born children of illegal immigrants should be stripped of their U.S. citizenship.

The younger Paul — whose comments on the Civil Rights Act were condemned as “absolutely appalling” on May 20 by House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-South Carolina), a senior member of the Congressional Black Caucus and a veteran of the civil rights movement — said that the U.S. is “the only country that I know that allows people to come in illegally, have a baby, and then that baby becomes a citizen. I think that should stop.” Rand Paul made his assertions in spite of the fact that citizenship for all persons born in the U.S. is a right guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

RON PAUL DENOUNCES CIVIL RIGHTS ACT IN 2004 SPEECH ON HOUSE FLOOR. . .

It was on June 24, 2004 when the House of Representatives passed a resolution honoring the Civil Rights Act on the 40th anniversary of its passage. The vote was a nearly unanimous 414 to 1. Incredibly, Ron Paul was the only member of the House to have voted “no.”

In his floor speech — which is published in full in the June 23, 2004 edition of The Congressional Record — the elder Paul said that the Civil Rights Act “gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society.”

Ron Paul asserted that under the landmark anti-discrimination law “bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.”

The  Texas congressman went on to say that “the federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form — or not form — contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties.”

He concluded his remarks by saying that, “While I join in sponsors of [this resolution] in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty.”

. . . AND AGAIN IN 2007 INTERVIEW ON ‘MEET THE PRESS’

Shortly after declaring his candidacy for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination, the elder Paul made an appearance on the December 23, 2007 edition of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” during which, when pressed by then-host, the late Tim Russert, to clarify his remarks, insisted that Title II of the Civil Rights Act violated property rights.

“You’re not compelled in your house to [invite] strangers you don’t like,” Paul said, referring to Title II’s ban on discrimination in public accommodations. “So it’s a property-rights issue. This idea that all private property is under the domain of the federal government I think is wrong.”

When asked point-blank by Russert if he would vote against the Civil Rights Act today, the elder Paul replied, “Yes — if it were written the same way, where the federal government has taken over property. It has nothing to do with race relations . . . It has to do with the Constitution and private property rights.”

RON PAUL ALSO SAYS LINCOLN WRONG TO GO TO WAR TO END SLAVERY

When Russert confronted him with a 2006 Washington Post article that read, in part, that “According to [Paul], Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery,” the Texas congressman replied, “Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, [Lincoln] shouldn’t have gone to war.”

Russert interrupted Paul to say that “We’d still have slavery,” to which he derisively answered, “Oh, come on, Tim! Slavery was phased out in every other country in the world and the way I’m advising is that it should have been done by doing what the British did — You buy the slaves and then release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans?

“Every other country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war,” the elder Paul continued. “That doesn’t sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.”

In the wake of the elder Paul’s public pronouncements on the Civil Rights Act and even on the Civil War to end slavery — combined with racially inflammatory articles published in a series of early 1990s newsletters that bore his name — is it any wonder that his 2008 presidential campaign drew support from avowed white supremacists, including former Ku Klux Klan imperial wizard Don Black, who now runs Stormfront — the largest “white-nationalist” site on the Web — asThe ‘Skeeter Bites Report and other bloggers revealed in January of that year?

Is it also any wonder that, to this day, the 74-year-old Ron Paul has been steadfast in his refusal to either distance himself from the white supremacists who backed his 2008 campaign or to return their financial contributions? There are even reports that some of those same white supremacists who backed the elder Paul’s run for the White House are now supporting his son’s Senate candidacy.

RAND PAUL: ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS’ AMERICAN-BORN KIDS SHOULD NOT BE CITIZENS

Meanwhile, the 47-year-old Rand Paul is in trouble yet again — this time over controversial remarks made in a Russian TV interview. Appearing on the state-run, English-language Russia Today (RT) network shortly after winning the May 18 primary, the Kentucky Republican Senate candidate said that the American-born children of illegal immigrants should not automatically become U.S. citizens.

The younger Paul told RT’s Dina Gusovsky that he believes that politics plays a big hand in the current immigration issue. “We shouldn’t provide an easy route to citizenship,” he said. “A lot of this is about demographics. If you look at new [legal] immigrants from Mexico, they register [to vote by a] three to one [margin as] Democrat[s], so the Democrat Party is for easy citizenship and allowing them to vote.

“I think we need to re-address that,” he said. He didn’t specify how, but there is a bill pending in the House with 90 Republican co-sponsors that would deny automatic citizenship to the American-born children of illegal immigrants.

The bill, however, would clearly violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which explicitly says that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Not surprisingly, Ron Paul also favors denying citizenship to the American-born children of illegal immigrants. In his 2007 interview on “Meet the Press,” the elder Paul shocked Russert when he called for a constitutional amendment to do so. “The Fourteenth Amendment wasn’t in the original Constitution,” he said, “There’s a confusion on [its] interpretation.

“Individuals are supposed to have birthright citizenship if they’re under the jurisdiction of the government,” he continued. “Someone who illegally comes into this country — say a drug dealer — is he under [U.S.] jurisdiction and their [American-born] children deserves citizenship? I think that’s awfully confusing, and I have a bill pending to change that, as well as a constitutional amendment to clarify that.”

WHY ARE THE PAULS SO INTENT ON ALIENATING BLACKS, LATINOS?

So explicit is the language of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause that no attempt to deny citizenship to the American-born children of illegal immigrants has ever succeeded in court. And a constitutional amendment to achieve that purpose would require two-thirds supermajorities in both houses of Congress for passage — supermajorities which do not currently exist and are unlikely to exist even if Republicans took back control of Congress in November’s midterm election.

A constitutional amendment would also have to be ratified by a three-fourths majority — 38 — of the 50 state legislatures before it can become part of “the supreme law of the land.” Currently, the Democrats control a majority of 28 of the 50 statehouses. Chances for passage of such an amendment, therefore, is virtually nil.

Indeed, it would be politically suicidal in the long run for any politician to push for such measures. Already, Latinos are the fastest-growing voting bloc in the nation, especially in California and the Southwest. They’re also the fastest-growing segment of the U.S. population overall, according to the Census Bureau, with the Latino birth rate now outpacing that of whites for the first time in the nation’s history.

Republicans in California already have been paying a severe political price with Latino voters — who now make up 40 percent of the state’s electorate — in the 15 years since they successfully campaigned for Proposition 187, a 1994 ballot initiative designed to prohibit illegal immigrants from using the state’s social services, health care, and public education, only to see it struck down by the federal courts as an illegal state intrusion into federal jurisdiction.

Next door in Arizona, a Latino voter backlash continues to grow against Arizona Republicans over the recent passage by the GOP-controlled legislature and signing into law by the state’s Republican governor, Jan Brewer, of a measure to crack down on illegal immigrants in that state. Critics of the new law warn that it would lead to widespread discrimination against Latinos, including Mexican-Americans, who make up nearly a third of Arizona’s population, according to the Census Bureau.

So why are Ron and Rand Paul — who both swear they aren’t racists — nonetheless seemingly bent on alienating African Americans with their denunciations of the Civil Rights Act and on alienating Hispanic Americans with their calls to deny U.S. citizenship to the American-born children of illegal immigrants from south of the border?

And why has the elder Paul continued to turn a blind eye to the white supremacists who backed his 2008 presidential campaign — some of whom are now reportedly supporting his son’s Senate candidacy? Are the Pauls really that blind to the damage to racial and ethnic harmony that their positions — and their controversial supporters — are inflicting?

# # #

Copyright 2010, Skeeter Sanders. All rights reserved.