The Battles Rage

If there aren't enough troops fighting terrorists in Iraq one reason might be the number we've got dedicated to fighting lawsuits:

The Supreme Court declined Tuesday to decide whether the Pentagon is constitutionally obligated to give news media access to U.S. troops during combat.

The court, without comment, rejected the appeal by Larry Flynt, the self-described smut peddler who publishes Hustler magazine. He was challenging a lower ruling earlier this year that the First Amendment does not shield journalists from government interference in gathering news from the battlefield.

?During war or other times of armed conflict, press representatives play a unique role in providing the American people with an independent source of information concerning the government?s actions ... in a setting where the vast majority of Americans do not have personal access,? Flynt stated in his legal filing.

Flynt sued the Defense Department after officials declined his request to have reporters accompany the first wave of U.S. troops sent to Afghanistan shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Defense officials then said only a small number of troops were in Afghanistan and that ?the highly dangerous and unique nature of their work make it very difficult to embed media.? They also noted that the media was given access to other aspects of military operations.

In their legal filing, government lawyers also argued that a First Amendment right of access does not extend to ?government property or information that is not open to the public.?

In February, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit sided with Pentagon officials, concluding there ?is nothing we have found in the Constitution, American history, or our case law to support? the claim that reporters have that constitutional right.

The case is Flynt v. Rumsfeld, 04-33.

Lets repeat the key bits for any who missed them the first time: ?the highly dangerous and unique nature of their work make it very difficult to embed media.? Really, that's not a neocon lie.

Now once more into the breech, my band of... uh... brothers?

A national organization of gay Republicans filed suit in Los Angeles federal court Tuesday seeking to overturn the Defense Department's "don't ask, don't tell" policy governing homosexuals in the military.

The Log Cabin Republicans claim in their lawsuit that the policy violates the rights of gay service members to freedom of speech, due process and equal protection under the law.

Under "don't ask, don't tell," gays are allowed to serve in the military provided they do not disclose their sexual orientation and do not engage in homosexual conduct.

Since it was implemented by the Clinton administration in 1994, nearly 10,000 military personnel have been discharged for violating the policy, according to the lawsuit.

A quick injection of truth, then back to the news: prior to the Clinton administration policy, potential recruits were simply asked if they were gay, and barred if they said yes. Crafty and determined homosexuals would occasionally deny their leanings, and later if discovered would be expelled from the service for making false claims. When 'don't ask don't tell' became the policy, the question was no longer asked, and the military was forced to expel homosexuals for being homosexual - thus offering a misleading statistic to those opposed to the policy: "more homosexuals were booted out after don't ask don't tell then before." Not arguing for or against any policy here, just providing facts. Now back to our story:

Though previous legal challenges have failed, the gay Republicans' suit says that any legal rationale for the policy has been undermined by recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

The lawsuit cites a Supreme Court ruling last year that gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to engage in private, intimate sexual conduct without interference by the state.

Those who thought Lawrence v Texas was not the beginning of a slippery slope are encouraged to nod wisely here. But those who envisage a flood of Queer Eye-types helping the National Guard meet its recruiting goals for '05 had best note the story's final line:

The policy has also had a disproportionate impact on women in the armed forces, according to the suit.

So forget those fears of massive uniform re-designs.

Hey, wait a minute...