The Pentagon is endorsing a move by leaders at Fort Bragg to stay out of a decision made by its on-base spouses club to refuse membership to the lesbian spouse of a female Army lieutenant, a Department of Defense spokesman said Wednesday.

The legal basis for the Pentagon’s stance is a department-wide “instruction” drafted in 2008, three years before the repeal of the military’s anti-gay “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy, said Nathan Christensen, a spokesman for the Pentagon. That directive ensures that “non-federal entities” operating on U.S. military installations don’t discriminate on the basis of “race, color, creed, sex, age, disability, or national origin.” There is no mention of discrimination based on sexual orientation.

NBC News reported Dec. 14 that Ashley Broadway, the newlywed wife of Lt. Col. Heather Mack, was blocked from joining the spouses club at Fort Bragg, N.C., sparking accusations from a national military spouses organization that Broadway was being blackballed only because she is a lesbian.

---

The Army’s handling of that matter runs counter to a directive issued Jan. 9 by Marine Corps leaders who ordered that same-sex spouses be allowed to participate in spouses clubs at all Marine bases. 

“The Officer Spouses' Club at Ft. Bragg is in compliance with the DOD instruction,” Christensen said. “When you look at the instruction there are a few things it has to meet. As long as they meet those criteria, they’re allowed to meet on the base.”

Broadway and Mack have been together for 15 years, have a 2-year-old son together and Mack is expected to deliver their second child this month. They married in November — their first chance to hold a formal ceremony after the 2011 repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.” On Wednesday, Broadway said the Pentagon's position only added fuel to a larger battle for equal rights being waged within the U.S. military by other same-sex spouses. 

“This is no longer about me joining this officers club. This is about the Pentagon and the Department of Defense and the Department of Army telling the country that it is OK to discriminate against gay and lesbian service members and their families,” Broadway told NBC News.

“This is not the end. I’m not going to drop this. I’m not going to sit back and take the discrimination when I know good and well the Pentagon and Secretary of Defense can sign rights today that would also authorize military IDs and extend housing (to the same-sex spouses of service members),” she added. “The decisions here at Fort Bragg, and in the Department of Army, have showed absolutely no gesture of: ‘Hey, you’re important and this is discrimination.’ If anything, they’ve shown they absolutely don’t care. Disappointed? Extremely. Frustrated? Extremely. Surprised? No.”

Broadway, meanwhile, has been nominated for the Fort Bragg Military Spouse of the Year award, a precursor to the Army Military Spouse of the Year award and — perhaps, ultimately — the 2013 Armed Forces Insurance Military Spouse of the Year award, which represents all branches. She is one of about 10 Bragg spouses nominated for the award from that base. Online voting for the base-level award takes place Jan. 22. 

Mack has received overwhelming support within her Army unit at Fort Bragg, Broadway said. 

The Pentagon's position on the Fort Bragg matter is legally viable despite the repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” because, Christensen said, the Department of Defense still follows the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). That law defined marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman. Under DOMA, the federal government doesn’t recognize same-sex marriages and doesn’t offer same-sex military spouses some benefits given to heterosexual spouses.

Asked if the Marine Corps’ recent directive banning the discrimination of same-sex spouses at its spouses clubs conflicts with the Pentagon’s stance, Christensen responded: “The DOD policy has not changed.”

But Mary Reding, a California attorney and president of Military Spouse JD Network — the largest association of military spouse attorneys — contends that the Pentagon's legal hair-splitting contradicts the spirit of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.”

"While the Army's position is defensible based on outdated internal policies,” Reding said, "the current climate and the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' would indicate a shift in acceptance that should be a catalyst for an immediate review of discriminatory practices in all policy areas." 

Related: Marine Corps orders spouses clubs to allow same-sex members
Related: Same-sex wife of Army officer banned from Fort Bragg spouses club

A New Jersey teen who was locked inside a police van cage for 15 hours without access to food, water or a bathroom, has sued the Fort Lee Police Department, its chief and 19 police officers.

Adam Kim, who was 17 at the time, was placed in the cage with four other young men, according to a civil complaint filed in U.S. District Court last month. Without a bathroom, the complaint says, the teens had to relieve themselves in front of each other. They also had to huddle together for warmth, as temperatures hovered below freezing and Kim was wearing just a T-shirt.

His lawyer, Nancy E. Lucianna, told the The Record that Kim, now a college freshman, is traumatized by what happened. Nightmares keep him from sleeping soundly and he has sought out therapy and medication to cope with the ordeal.

---

Around midnight on March 25, 2011, Fort Lee police officers responded to noise complaints stemming from a house party that Kim was attending.

The officers, according to Kim, referred to him and others as “chinks” and made “vulgar remarks” about how the females were dressed. Kim is Korean American.

The officers then loaded their police van with 14 teens – five, including Kim, were placed in the cage on the right. Five others were the cage on the left. The last four sat in seats in the van.

“Police officers opened both doors of the van and only allowed the left side occupants of the van to be removed,” the complaint says.

At 2 a.m., two police officers returned to the van and responded to a call at a fast food restaurant. Later, they were dispatched to Gotham City Diner. When the teens shouted, “Officer, officer,” no one responded.

They banged on doors and shouted at passers-by for help, to no avail. Eventually, the complaint says, an elderly man saw them and called police. Medics were called and the five young men were given food and water. 

Lucianna argues that Kim’s civil rights were violated.

“Adam Kim suffered severe mental and emotional anguish, loss of freedom, humiliation, and anxiety,” she wrote in the complaint. “He has suffered permanent damages due to the discriminatory acts.”

Police Chief Thomas Ripoli, who retired Monday because he had turned 65, the mandatory retirement age, refused to comment to The Record.

More content from NBCNews.com:

• One inch: Death in combat hinges on the tiniest margins
• Despite 'fiscal cliff' deal, more political drama likely on way
• Handcuffed California teen shot while in police custody
• Legalized pot, gay marriage: Are we all Washington now?
• New laws target sex offenders with Santa suits, and more
• Video: Two teens, 12-year-old charged in fatal carjacking

Follow US news from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook

 

A New York City man prevented from returning home from overseas by the federal government’s security apparatus has landed in the United States after a three-week delay, rights advocates say.  

Samir Suljovic, 26, entered the United States on Friday night in Philadelphia, where he was questioned at length by Customs and Border Protection agents, causing him to miss his connecting flight to New York. He boarded a train, arriving in New York late Monday night.

Suljovic, who was born and raised in Queens, told NBC New York he believes he was banned from flying because he's Muslim.

"I wear a cap, I have a beard, I roll my pants up," Suljovic he told the NBC station. "They discriminated against me because I'm Muslim. What else could it be?"

---

"They made me feel like I'm some kind of terrorist, some kind of criminal for no damn reason," he said. "I'm an American citizen. I'm being played here."

Suljovic, who has worked as a security guard in New York, had been visiting relatives in Montenegro and was attempting to come home on Oct. 1 when he was denied boarding his U.S.-bound flight from Vienna, Austria. 

His story echoes those of dozens of other Americans, many of them Muslims, who have been stranded overseas by their apparent inclusion on the U.S. "no-fly" list, prompting legal challenges to the government.

Related content:
American aid worker in Libya: U.S. bars my return
What gives? Another American in Libya no-fly limbo
No-fly Americans split up for return home
American seeks political asylum in Sweden alleging torture, FBI coercion

U.S. security watch lists currently have about 50,000 names, of which about 20,000 are on the 'no-fly' list of people who are "known and reasonably suspected terrorists," and among those are about 500 Americans, according to an official at the FBI Terrorist Screening Center, who asked not to be named.

The official would not say whether Suljovic’s name was on the no-fly list.

"Government policy is not to disclose that for security reasons," said the official. As an example, the official said, an aspiring terrorist who learned he or she was listed might change his or her identity.

Airline ticket agents in Vienna handed Suljovic a note from the Department of Homeland Security and instructed him to apply for a redress number for people who think they may be mistakenly on the "no-fly list."

The Department of Homeland Security redress procedure, which goes by the acronym TRIP for Travel Redress Inquiry Program, is set up to weed out people who are on the list because of mistaken identity. The TRIPS process does not provide a way for people who think they are wrongly placed on the list for other reasons to challenge those reasons.

Also from NBC New York: Barney's super skinny Minnie Mouse sparks protests

The U.S. Embassy in Vienna told Suljovic he was cleared for a flight back to the United States from Munich, Germany.

But after traveling by train to Munich, he was again denied boarding and instructed to go to the U.S. consulate there, where he did not get resolution. He says that he was instead interrogated by embassy personnel who also searched his cellphone without his permission.

The Council on American Islamic Relations, a nonprofit Muslim advocacy and civil rights group, wrote letters to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano and the U.S. Embassy in Munich seeking an explanation of obstacles to his return home.

Suljovic told NBC New York on Monday he had to eat the cost of two flights that he was prohibited from boarding, and spent about $2,000 in Vienna and Munich while trying to get clearance to go home.

"I was like a mouse in a maze. I didn't know where to go, and I was wondering when I'd come home," he said. "I had nowhere to stay. I slept at the airport for the first few days." 

Suljovic said he's frustrated that government officials haven't been able to tell him why he couldn't come home, and that they haven't been able to tell him if he is on the no-fly list at all.

After a number of tries over the course 22 days, Suljovic was finally allowed to board the flight to Philadelphia on Friday. No explanation was given for his delays, or for his ultimate ability to fly home.

The opaqueness of U.S. security policy has prompted a a number of challenges to the use of the no-fly list. The most significant case, working its way through courts in Oregon, was brought by the ACLU in 2010 on behalf of 17 plaintiffs against the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI Terrorist Screening Center. That case challenges the constitutionality of the no-fly list, arguing that it deprives individuals of due process.

A separate lawsuit filed in April by the Michigan chapter of CAIR alleges invasive questioning of American Muslims by CPB officials at land borders.

"Samir is back in the United States because it is his right to be here,” said Muneer Awad, executive director for the New York chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations. "It is his right today, and it was his right twenty-two days ago when our government prevented him from boarding any return flight home."

More content from NBCNews.com:

• Ex-CIA agent pleads guilty to leaking identity of covert operative
• Arizonans to vote on taking Grand Canyon from federal control
• Beard issue again delays military trial in Fort Hood shootings
• Body found in N.J. is that of missing 12-year-old girl, uncle says
• Pa. grandmother found dead, baby missing, police say
• Denied dream wedding site, lesbian couple files discrimination complaint

Follow US news from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook

Follow Kari Huus on Facebook

 

In the run-up to the Democratic National Convention, several hundred Muslims attended "Jumah," or Friday prayer, in a park in Charlotte, N.C., as part of an effort to mobilize Muslims and get them engaged in political discourse. But the event sparked some of the same negative reaction that the organizers were hoping to combat.

Organizers said they hoped to use the prayers, a town hall meeting planned for Saturday and cultural festival to open events to non-Muslims and bring attention to problems that they believe disproportionately affect Muslims but are ignored by both political parties.

They cite what they consider invasive practices under the Patriot Act, discrimination against mosque construction through the use of zoning laws, "anti-shariah" bills being passed by state and local governments and more generally a climate of Islamophobia.

---

"One of the reasons for pulling folks together is to stay focused," said Jibril Hough, one of the organizers from the nonprofit Bureau of Indigenous Muslim Affairs, or BIMA. "A lot of our issues that we are going to be bringing up will not be discussed by RNC or DNC. Both parties have supported deals that are eroding our civil liberties."

While about 300 Muslims prayed in Marshall Park in downtown Charlotte, the Christian group Operation Save America showed up to protest. Islam is one of the three main targets of its protests, along with abortion clinics and gay rights events. A news release from the organization on Thursday explained its reasoning.

"Hatred toward the God of the Bible (Jesus) is the great unifier of abortion, homosexuality, and Islam," said the release. "Hatred toward God and the nation He made great – America, is the platform of the DNC."

That protest had a permit and was anticipated, said Hough, and the police were poised to protect Operation Save America's right to protest without allowing them to disrupt the Muslim prayer.

"I told (the leader of the protest) I support his First Amendment right," said Hough. "But just because you have the right to do something doesn’t mean you should do it."

The BIMA events were posted alongside hundreds of others on the official web site of the DNC host committee, none of which is sanctioned or supported by the committee, to let people attending the convention know what else is going on in town.

But the BIMA events were removed from the calender after negative publicity.

Some critics of Islam described both Hough and the headline speaker, Imam Siraj Wahhaj, as Islamic radicals.

In an interview on Fox television on Thursday, Zudhi Jasser, a controversial figure within the Muslim community who calls out "extremists" within his own faith, compared the views of BIMA to the KKK or the Nazi party, urging the DNC to distance itself from the event.

"They clearly are part of the global Islamist movement and really are an insurgency within this country," said Jasser, an Arizona physician who says many American Muslim leaders hope to replace American democracy with rule by Islamic law.

Meanwhile, in articles like this one in Frontpage.com, the right-wing blogosphere dissected Wahhaj's sermons and history, intimating that his conservative views were dangerous and embraced by the Democratic Party.

A senior DNC host committee official confirmed that the BIMA events had been removed from the website's "upcoming events" page.

"This event, like many others on the page, was user generated," a senior Host Committee official told NBC News on Friday. "Upon further review, and because speakers for the event and statements and positions from event organizers were not appropriate and relevant to the Host Committee, Charlotte in 2012 has decided to remove the event from our events calendar."

"This is about caving in to fear and ignorance," said Hough. On the other hand, he said, the prayer event "was very open, open to all, in the public square. Thousands will read about it and further understanding of Muslims and what is important to us."

More content from NBCNews.com:

• Clint Eastwood's empty chair at RNC sparks Internet buzz
• Lawyer: Ex-Navy SEAL sought advice before publishing book about bin Laden raid
• Romney tours Isaac damage in New Orleans area
• For military members, early retirement is costly
• Video: Large parts of Gulf Coast submerged
• Obama orders VA to expand suicide prevention services

Follow US News from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook

Follow Kari Huus on Facebook

On Sunday and Monday, when Muslims will celebrate the end of Ramadan, even many who are less observant the rest of the year will be at mosques to pray. But many worshippers will celebrate amid heightened security after a recent spike in attacks on mosques and other places of worship.

"We recommend a security guard during prayer hours,” said Abed Ayoub, legal director of the nonprofit American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, or ADC. "Take measures and use common sense. Keep an eye on people who don’t seem to fit in. We ask them to install video cameras at the doors and throughout the mosque. Limit access to areas such as the kitchen, furnace or storage where someone could hide."

This is not the first time that Muslims have been advised to exercise caution. There was a spike in crimes aimed at the religious minority after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States by Islamist terrorists, and Ayoub said there has been an increase again since 2010, starting around the time of the bitter dispute over Park 51, the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" in Manhattan.

---

The latest round of cautionary alerts was set off by the bloody attack on a different religious group. On Aug. 5, six Sikh worshippers were killed and others wounded when Wade Michael Page opened fire at their temple in Oak Creek, Wis., before killing himself.

Because the suspect is dead, his motives remain unknown. But he had white supremacist connections, so many observers concluded that his attack was a hate crime targeting strangers who were minorities.

"What happened in Wisconsin was a tragedy, and it shed light on the bigotry that unfortunately still exists in this country,” said Ayoub.

Muslim groups expressed solidarity with the Sikh community, and fears of their own.

"Within an hour of the Sikh shooting we were on the phone with the Dearborn metro law enforcement, and beefed up security that evening," said Ayoub, who is the legal director for the Washington-based ADC. The group has offices in Dearborn, Mich., which is home to the largest concentration of Arab Americans in the country.

In the 12 days since that deadly shooting, at least eight cases of vandalism and attacks on mosques, including a suspected arson, have been documented by the ADC and other civil rights groups.

Investigators have not been able to prove a fire that destroyed a mosque in Joplin, Mo., on Aug. 6 was intentionally set, the FBI said on Thursday, but they have video surveillance of an apparent arson attempt at the mosque one week earlier and have described the second fire as "suspicious."

In Morton Grove, Ill. while 500 were attending evening prayers at a mosque in the Chicago suburb, a man shot at the building with a pellet gun, only slightly damaging the building, but nearly hitting a security guard. The man arrested in connection with the incident turned out to be a neighbor who had a history of complaints and opposition to the mosque, said Rizwan Kadir, who is on the board of the mosque and school.

In Oklahoma City, vandals defaced the Grand Mosque, firing paintball guns at it while it was filled with worshippers. In Lombard, Ill., a "MacGyver bomb" hit the window of an Islamic school that was being used for evening prayer. The soda bottle, filled with chemicals and aluminum foil that react to make an explosion, did not break the window and exploded outside, so worshippers were rattled but not hurt. In Hayward, Calif., four teenagers were arrested after vandalizing a mosque by throwing lemons, oranges, eggs, and firing BB guns.

"If you look at the smaller incidents in isolation you can deal with it, but when you see all these things happening, it does take its emotional toll on people,” said Kadir.

Kadir said many people in the area, local Christian and Jewish groups, as well as the police and Morton Grove mayor and trustees have come forward to show solidarity with the Muslim community since the shooting.

"All these are positive things," he said. "At the same time we are on our guard."

Council on American Islamic relations: Safety and security tips

While no one is saying that the attacks are connected, many Muslim leaders and civil rights advocates see common fuel in the anti-Muslim rhetoric that they say has intensified during the current election cycle.

"When the rhetoric gets bad, the hate crimes and attacks go up,” said Ayoub, of ADC. "Unless the rhetoric changes, I feel there will be more happening before the election.

On the list of politicians he says are fueling bigotry is Michele Bachmann, who recently led the call for a federal investigation of senior State Deparatment official Huma Abedin. Bachmann accused Abedin of using her position to influence policy in favor of Egypt’s Islamist Muslim Brotherhood.

The charge outraged many Muslims. Even some of Bachman’s fellow Republicans protested the attack, including Sen. John McCain, who defended Abedin as a "true patriot."

Another politician becoming well known for his persistent warnings about the threat of "homegrown radicals" among the Muslim population is Rep. Joe Walsh, R-Ill., a member of the House Homeland Security Committee.

"While the overwhelming majority of Muslims are as peace loving as everyone else, there are radical Islamists right here in the United States trying to kill Americans and destroy this country," he told a town hall meeting in Elk Grove Village, Ill.

The ADC draws a direct line between Walsh's comments and the "MacGyver bomb" attack on the worshippers in his district, saying his comments incited fear. In a statement on Wednesday, the group called on "all politicians and elected officials to change the national discourse, distance themselves from xenophobic rhetoric and put an immediate end to the culture of hate and violence."

Walsh's office rejected the idea that the congressman's statements incite or condone violence against ordinary Muslims. Walsh was merely restating what has been said in a series of committee hearings on homegrown radicalization of Muslims, according to spokesman Justin Roth.

"Not one time has Congressman Walsh said that we need to go get those Muslims," said Roth. "He condemns these attacks just as he condemns the more than 1,000 attacks against Jews every year (that take place) simply out of hatred."

Ayoub and others urged Muslims to reach out to police in their areas seeking additional patrols and support, especially for crowded Eid al Fitre prayers on Sunday and Monday. 

"It's very important to keep everybody calm, don't let your people be afraid," said Ayoub. "We don't want people not going to the mosque because they are afraid. We want to ensure that people go and leave safely."

More content from NBCNews.com: 

• 'No papers, no fear': Illegal immigrants declare themselves on bus tour
• Texas sprayed as West Nile Virus spreads
• Wildfire evacuees return to find homes gone
• Video: 3 people hurt after carriage horse breaks free in NYC
• Ex-butler who injected socialite in extortion attempt faces sentencing

Follow US News from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook

Follow Kari Huus on Facebook

 

Updated at 8 p.m. ET: A former Disney employee on Monday sued the California-based entertainment giant, charging harassment and religious discrimination against her based on her Muslim religion and ethnic origins in North Africa.

A Disney spokesman said the company tried to accommodate the religious beliefs of Imane Boudlal, but that the restaurant hostess rejected their efforts at compromise and quit coming to work. 

Boudlal, a 28-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen from Morocco, started working at the Storytellers Café, a restaurant at the Grand Californian Hotel and Spa in the Disneyland Resort, in April of 2008. She alleges in a lawsuit filed in federal court that management failed to address persistent racial and religious harassment from fellow workers and that it refused to accommodate her wish to wear a traditional Muslim headscarf or "hijab" at work, a dispute that ultimately led to her departure in 2010.

"Disneyland calls itself the happiest place on Earth, but I faced harassment as soon as I started working there," said Boudlal in the complaint filed in California Central District Court in Los Angeles. "It only got worse when I decided to wear a hijab. My journey towards wearing it couldn’t have been more American; it began at my naturalization ceremony. I realized that I had the freedom to be who I want and freely practice my religion."

---

In Islam, the hijab is an expression of a commitment to modesty and virtue by women, and those who choose to wear it typically do so at all times outside the home.

Boudlal worked as a hostess in the Disney restaurant — greeting and seating patrons.

Like other front-line employees and Disney cast members, she wore a uniform specifically designed for that position at Disney — in this case a long sleeved white shirt and western-style vest that are intended to evoke America at the turn of the 19th century.

In 2010, after two years working at the restaurant, she requested permission to also wear her headscarf, a function of her growing religious conviction.

However, managers argued that the headscarf violated the restaurant's "look" policy, and could negatively affect the experience of diners, according to the complaint, drafted with the assistance of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California.

Suzi Brown, director of media relations for Disneyland Resort in Anaheim, released a statement on the allegations:  

"Walt Disney Parks and Resorts has a history of accommodating religious requests from cast members of all faiths.  We presented Ms. Boudlal with multiple options to accommodate her religious beliefs, as well as offered her several roles that would have allowed her to wear her own hijab.  Unfortunately, she rejected all of our efforts and has since refused to come to work."

The lawsuit alleges that her managers did not address her complaints of harassment by other employees, who she says taunted her with names including "camel," "terrorist" and "Kunta Kinte," a reference to the slave in the 1976 book "Roots," by Alex Haley, that later became a television miniseries.

"In fact, the 'look' policy was loosely enforced in the restaurant, withseveral employees sporting tattoos, jewelry or hairstyles in violation. Christian employees were allowed to work with marked foreheads on Ash Wednesday, in spite of the fact that this, too, goes against the stated policy," the complaint says.

Boudlal said Disney refused her efforts to compromise, such as offering to wear a scarf to match the work uniform.

Among the proposals that Disney made were several different specially designed headcoverings for Boudlal.

Disney's Brown sent an image of one of these proposed garments — which she said was the third effort to meet the employee's religious needs and the company's 'look' policy before Boudlal "refused to come to work."

The other option for Boudlal was to work in behind-the-scenes positions, out of sight of diners.

Boudlal refused these options, considering them unfair and humiliating, according to the complaint.

"This is modern day Jim Crow," said Anne Richardson, a Los Angeles attorney who represents Boudlal. "Muslims who want to express their religion by wearing a headscarf have to work in the back, out of sight."

Watch the most-viewed videos on NBCNews.com

Speaking to NBC News by phone on Monday, Boudlal said that after leaving Disney she was fired from another job after her manager learned of her dispute with Anaheim-based Disney through an Internet search.

Thus, she has suffered loss of income, as well as depression and anxiety, said ACLU-SC attorney Mark Rosenbaum in the complaint calling for a jury trial.  

"There has been real emotional suffering here," he said Monday. Rosenbaum declined to specify damages sought on Boudlal’s behalf.

In addition, Rosenbaum said the suit aims to force a change in Disney’s policies.

"You never see anyone working there wear a hijab," he said. "We want those practices changed, and want training for employees and managers. It’s about getting Disney to change its policies and practices."

In a separate case in 2010, American Muslim Noor Abdullah was told she could not wear the hijab while working as a vacation planner at a Disney Resort Esplanade ticket booth, and she declined to take a job out of view of the public where the hijab was allowed, according to a report by NBC San Diego.

Ultimately, Disney worked with Abdullah to create a head covering that met her religious needs and the requirements of the public position, the report said.

More content from NBCNews.com:

• Big debt threatens security clearance for troops
• Wife of former congressman dies after being run over by her own car
• Report: Ex-Navy sub commander faked death to get out of affair
• Evangelist Billy Graham 'doing fine' at hospital
• Family: Cops didn't have to shoot knife-wielding man near Times Square
• Video: Multiple cameras show man driving wrong way

Follow US News from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook

Follow Kari Huus on Facebook

 

Prominent civil rights leaders joined protesters at a Harlem rally Saturday to voice objections to a police practice that has led to hundreds of thousands of innocent people being stopped and searched by officers.

The Rev. Al Sharpton led the gathering of about 200 people inside his New York City headquarters a day ahead of a planned Father's Day march against the New York Police Department's "stop-and-frisk" program. (Sharpton is the host of a show on msnbc cable TV.)

"If it were your child, Mayor Bloomberg, Commissioner Kelly, it would be one child too many," Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said at Sharpton's National Action Network.

---

See the original report at NBCNewYork.com

Critics say the NYPD's practice of stopping, questioning and searching people deemed suspicious is illegal and humiliating to thousands of law-abiding blacks and Hispanics. The NYPD last year stopped more than 630,000 people, mostly black and Hispanic men. About half were frisked, and only about 10 percent were arrested.

A federal judge in May ruled that there was "overwhelming evidence" that the practice has led to thousands of illegal stops. The judge granted class-action status to a lawsuit challenging the practice.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly defend the policy, saying the stop-and-frisk program keeps guns off New York streets and helps reduce crime.

The fathers of two youths killed during confrontations that have become civil rights causes also attended Saturday's rally. Tracey Martin, whose unarmed teenage son, Trayvon Martin, was fatally shot in Florida by a neighborhood watch volunteer, said: "It's hard to imagine tomorrow without him."

App records, reports controversial police 'stop and frisk' practice

Also in Harlem was Franclot Graham, whose teenage son, Ramarley Graham, was shot and killed after police chased him into his New York home. A New York police officer has been charged with manslaughter in his son's death.

NAACP President Benjamin Jealous said his 6-year-old daughter keeps asking him, "Why are you leaving?" each time news breaks of a young person who is shot or humiliated.

New York City stop-and-frisk lawsuit gets class-action status

"Let us take back Father's Day for all our children," Jealous told the rally.

Sunday's protest is billed as a "silent march" starting at 3 p.m. on Fifth Avenue and 110th Street and moving downtown to Bloomberg's town house at East 79th Street.

More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:

• Analysis: Tough task for Sandusky defense
• 4 climbers presumed dead in Mount McKinley avalanche
• Woman drives car into street party, up to 30 hurt
• Video: Tourist is a hero two days in a row
• Sex case: Jehovah's Witnesses must pay $20 million

Follow US News on msnbc.com on Twitter and Facebook

A U.S. citizen from San Diego who was barred from boarding a flight home from Costa Rica — apparently because he has been placed on the U.S. no-fly list — was attempting to fly to Mexico and cross into the United States by land on Thursday, attorneys familiar with his case said.

Kevin Iraniha, 27, had just completed his master's degree in international law at a United Nations-affiliated Peace University in Costa Rica and was preparing to return home on Tuesday when he was refused boarding, according to Munia Jabbar, a staff attorney with the Council on American Islamic Relations, or CAIR, a non-profit civil rights group.

Iraniha went to the U.S. Embassy in Costa Rica, where he was questioned extensively by FBI agents about his religious beliefs, his attendance and contacts at mosques in Costa Rica, and whether he was involved in activities that presented a threat, Jabbar said.

Iraniha was born and raised in San Diego. His father is an Iranian-born U.S. citizen, and his mother is a native-born U.S. citizen.

---

The officials indicated he was on the U.S. no-fly list of people who are prohibited from boarding domestic flights or international flights that enter U.S. airspace. The list has grown from just a few names prior to Sept. 11, 2001, when Islamic extremists used commercial flights to attack the United States, to a roster of about 20,000 names, including about 500 U.S. citizens in 2012.

 

In order to get home, Iraniha booked an alternative flight to Mexico City and onward to Tijuana, and planned to drive over the border to San Diego.

Kevin Iraniha could not immediately be reached by phone, but his brother Jahan said that he had received messages confirming arrival in Mexico City and imminent boarding of a flight for Tijuana. Family members were planning to go to the Mexican border to meet Iraniha Thursday evening, according to Jahan Iraniha, who declined further comment until Friday.

"At this moment we are trying to get him safely home, and we will look at the details and questions in coming days," said Hanif Mohebi, executive director of CAIR San Diego.

Dozens of Americans — primarily Muslims — have been stranded overseas by the no-fly list. As in Iraniha’s case, many discover they are on the list only when they are at an airport trying to check in for a flight.

Related reporting:

American seeks political asylum in Sweden alleging torture, FBI coercion
American aid worker: U.S. bars my return
What gives? Another American in Libya no-fly limbo 
Bittersweet homecoming for Libyan-American caught in no-fly limbo
No-fly Muslim takes case to court of public opinion

The no-fly list does not bar American citizens from returning to the United States by land.

But Iraniha’s ability to return is still uncertain, and there are few precedents for attempting to do so.

Another American who found he was on the no-fly list when attempting to return to the U.S. from Bogota, Colombia, was Raymond Knaeble.  After landing in Mexico City in May 2010, with plans to travel onward by land, Knaeble was interrogated by Mexican officials for 15 hours and then deported to Bogota, according to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.

According to the court documents, filed on behalf of 15 plaintiffs challenging the U.S. no-fly list, Knaeble finally got back to the United States from Colombia in August 2010 by traveling by bus for 12 days.

The no-fly list, maintained by the Terrorist Screening Center under the FBI, includes "known or reasonably suspected terrorists," according to the FBI website.

A background check showed no criminal background for Iraniha.

In 2010, he helped organize a peace protest to counter a planned Quran burning by anti-Muslim activists, according to the Ocean Bay Rag, a small publication in Southern California.

Iraniha spoke to the Union Tribune of San Diego after he was initially barred from his flight and questioned by the FBI about his religious beliefs and affiliations.

"It's discrimination," he told the publication. "I was shocked; it was really weird to have such questions being asked. First and foremost, I'm an American, and secondly, I don't believe in violence."

The publication said Iraniha — a self-described peace activist and "beach boy" — plans to take some type of action, possibly filing a lawsuit.

Iraniha's two brothers and his father, who had come to Costa Rica to attend his graduation, were all allowed to fly home to the United States.

More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:

• Crackdown on painkiller abuse fuels new wave of heroin addiction
• Jerry Sandusky trial: Many jurors have Penn State ties
• Judge grants Zimmerman another bond hearing
• Video: Sex offender running for school board post
• Dog gets starring role in study on what stresses killer whales

Follow US News on msnbc.com on Twitter and

 

Updated at 2:30 p.m. ET: A federal appeals court has ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act, a law that denies a host of federal benefits to same-sex married couples, is unconstitutional.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston ruled Thursday that the act known as DoMA, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, discriminates against gay couples.

---

The law was passed in 1996 at a time when it appeared Hawaii would legalize gay marriage. Since then, many states have instituted their own bans on gay marriage, while eight states have approved it, led by Massachusetts in 2004, and followed by Connecticut, New York, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maryland, Washington state and the District of Columbia. Maryland and Washington’s laws are not yet in effect and may be subject to referendums.

Watch US News videos on msnbc.com

The appeals court agreed with a lower court judge who ruled in 2010 that the law is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define marriage and denies married gay couples federal benefits given to heterosexual married couples, including the ability to file joint tax returns.

The 1st Circuit said its ruling wouldn’t be enforced until the U.S. Supreme Court decides the case, meaning that same-sex married couples will not be eligible to receive the economic benefits denied by DOMA until the high court rules.

Attorney Paul Clement, who represented the House of Representatives in defending DOMA, told msnbc.com that no decisions on legal strategy have been made.

“But we have always been clear we expect this matter ultimately to be decided by the Supreme Court, and that has not changed,” he said.

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the Boston-based legal group that brought one of the lawsuits on behalf of gay married couples, said the court agreed with the couples that it is unconstitutional because it takes one group of legally married people and treats them as "a different class" by making them ineligible for benefits given to other married couples.

"We’ve been working on this issue for so many years, and for the court to acknowledge that yes, same-sex couples are legally married, just as any other couple, is fantastic and extraordinary," said Lee Swislow, GLAD’s executive director.

Earlier: Illinois same-sex couples sue for right to marry

During arguments before the court last month, a lawyer for gay married couples said the law amounts to "across-the-board disrespect." The couples argued that the power to define and regulate marriage had been left to the states for more than 200 years before Congress passed DoMA.

An attorney defending the law argued that Congress had a rational basis for passing it in 1996, when opponents worried that states would be forced to recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere. The group said Congress wanted to preserve a traditional and uniform definition of marriage and has the power to define terms used to federal statutes to distribute federal benefits.

More than 1,000 benefits in question
Two California federal judges earlier said the act violated constitutional standards.

Judge Claudia Wilken of Oakland ruled May 24 that the law legalized bigotry by withholding more than 1,000 federal benefits -- such as joint tax filing, Social Security survivor payments and immigration sponsorship -- from gays and lesbians legally married under state law.

Judge Jeffrey White of San Francisco also declared DoMA unconstitutional and ordered the government to provide family insurance coverage to the wife of a lesbian court employee. White's ruling has been appealed to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which will hear the case in September.

President Barack Obama withdrew his administration's defense of the law in February 2011, saying he considered it unconstitutional. House Speaker John Boehner convened the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to defend it. The legal group argued the case before the appeals court.

On May 9, Obama declared in an interview with ABC News his unequivocal support for gay marriage, becoming the first president to endorse the idea.

Obama said, "I have hesitated on gay marriage in part because I thought that civil unions would be sufficient." He added that he "was sensitive to the fact that for a lot of people the word 'marriage' was something that invokes very powerful traditions, religious beliefs and so forth."

Now, he said, "it is important for me personally to go ahead and affirm that same-sex couples should be able to get married."

Two of the three judges who decided the case Thursday were Republican appointees, while the other was a Democratic appointee. Judge Michael Boudin, who wrote the decision, was appointed by President George H.W. Bush, while Judge Juan Torruella was appointed by President Ronald Reagan. Chief Judge Sandra Lynch is an appointee of President Bill Clinton.

Groups slam, praise ruling

• “Liberal federal judges in Massachusetts and California have resorted to making up legal standards in order to justify redefining marriage,” said Brian Brown, president of The National Organization for Marriage. “They realize the legal precedent doesn’t allow them to redefine marriage, so they are making up new standards to justify imposing their values on the rest of the nation. It is clear that the U.S. Supreme Court is going to have to resolve this issue once and for all. … It’s obvious that the federal courts on both coasts are intent on imposing their liberal, elitist views of marriage on the American people.”
• "We are thrilled that another court -- this time, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals -- has ruled that it is unconstitutional to deny respect to the marriages of lesbian and gay couples," said Camilla Taylor, National Marriage Project Director for Lambda Legal. “We congratulate our colleagues at GLAD for achieving this wonderful victory."
• "This is one more powerful statement now from an appellate court following four other federal courts that the so-called Defense of Marriage Act is indefensible under the constitution and should be discarded," Evan Wolfson, founder and president of Freedom to Marry, told msnbc.com. "It’s obviously a great victory not just for families harmed by federal marriage discrimination but for the country. Hopefully it will help us get back to our normal practice of the federal government respecting the marriages celebrated in the states without a gay exception."

Msnbc.com's Miranda Leitsinger and Jim Gold and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:

• New tests shed no light on 'burning rocks' mystery
• Teen in Mexico due to ‘Leap Day’ error can return home
• EPA planes spying on ranchers? Lawmakers want answers
• Video: IRS mistakenly sends waitress $400K refund
• Video purportedly shows NYC student making out with his teacher
• Man interviews for job, ends up getting detained for 1975 murder

Follow US News on msnbc.com on Twitter and Facebook

Updated at 7:30 p.m. ET: Construction work continued on a Murfreesboro, Tenn., mosque Wednesday despite a judge’s ruling a day earlier voiding building permits for the controversial project.

Chancellor Robert Corlew III of the 16^th District Chancery Court ruled that construction must cease because not enough notice was given about a May 24, 2010, public meeting in which Rutherford County planning commissioners approved the site plan for the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro.

"This is Sharia law," Joe Brandon, plaintiffs’ attorney, said of construction continuing without a valid permit. "They’re thumbing their nose at the state of Tennessee."

Brandon lodged an order Wednesday at the Chancery Court asking that construction at the mosque be stopped completely.

---

The county had not issued a stop work order by the end of Wednesday, Brandon said.

"If it were you or I, they'd be out there and stop us," Brandon charged. "The county attorney needs to man up and tell them to stop."

Corlew ruled in favor of Kevin Fisher and other Rutherford County residents who sued the Planning Commission. The mosque is free to reapply for permits, he said.

"It's a good day for the plaintiffs; I'm very pleased with the outcome," plaintiff Henry Golcyznky said, adding he was somewhat surprised Corlew ruled in the plaintiffs' favor.

See the original story on NBC Station WSMV of Nashville, Tenn.

"There should have been public notice. People should have been allowed to come in and express or at least understand what was going on," Golcyznky said.

A public notice about the 2010 Planning Commission meeting, in which no public hearing was required over the mosque’s site plan, was published in the twice-weekly Murfreesboro Post, which has a contract to handle Rutherford County’s legal advertising. 

Islamic Center members said they hoped to complete the first phase of the mosque by Ramadan, a month-long Muslim holiday beginning this year on July 20, based on the Islamic lunar calendar.

"This decision comes at a crucial time, because we were at a point about to celebrate the opening of our center. which we were hoping to happen, probably within two to three months. It's a sad day in our community," said mosque member Saleh Sbenaty.

Construction of the $2 million, 52,000-square-foot mosque is well under way, with the first phase, a 12,000-square-foot building, nearly complete.

Watch the Top Videos on msnbc.com 

The mosque was not a party in the lawsuit.

"We really don't know the implications of the ruling that the judge came with. We're still in contact with our legal counsel. ... We're going to see what the next step is going to be," Sbenaty said

If the mosque officials must reapply for permits, then they will, he said.

A construction crew was at the mosque site Wednesday.

 "The decision of the court will not be final at the earliest until 30 days after a court order is filed, county attorney Jim Cope said. "Therefore, things will remain in a fluid state during the next several weeks until the parties, ICM, and the court address all the legal issues that remain pending and unresolved."

The judge's ruling drew nationwide attention.

Council on American-Islamic Relations called for the Department of Justice to intervene in the case if the county doesn't issue new building permits to "protect the religious rights of Tennessee Muslims."

CAIR said the judge’s ruling “used phrases and reasoning which could be viewed as indicating that a higher degree of public notice is required for issues related to Tennessee Muslims.”

Earlier story at NBC station WSMV of Nashville, Tenn.

"American Muslim constitutional rights should not be diminished merely because anti-Muslim bigots are able to manufacture a controversy about what would otherwise be normal religious activities," said CAIR attorney Gadeir Abbas.

"If the Rutherford County Planning Commission does not immediately issue new permits for the mosque, we urge the Department of Justice to intervene in this case to support the religious rights of Tennessee Muslims."

Mosque opponents have fought construction for two years, arguing that Islam is not a real religion deserving of First Amendment protections and that the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro has terrorist ties.

The judge dismissed those allegations but held the trial on the narrower claim that the public meeting law was violated.

Larry Flowers is a reporter at NBC station WSMV of Nashville, Tenn.

Follow Jim Gold at msnbc.com on Facebook here.

More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:

• Son of lesbian moms: Boy Scouts must end gay discrimination
• Snake-handling preacher dies from rattlesnake bite in West Virginia
• Report: Obama embraces disputed definition of 'civilian' in drone wars
• Video: Lone Star State puts Romney over the top
• China slowdown threatens US factory revival

Follow US News on msnbc.com on Twitter and Facebook