Nobel Winner warns U.N. on Darfur

It has been more than four years since the conflict in Darfur erupted. The Genocide of the 21st century. And it seems that little has happened or is going to happen. We know what happened in Cambodia, Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia. That was in the "past." This just happens to be now, and still there is little hope to report.

In this report by the NY Times, a Nobel Prize Winner warned the United Nations Human Rights Council that it would "lose credibility" if it did not hold the Sudanese government responsible for the atrocities it is committing against its people. Although I applaud his courage to stand up to the 47-nation-member Council, I am skeptical about the results that would come out of this declaration. So, the U.N. says the Sudanese government's actions are deplorable. Does that mean that there will be any improvement in the situation is Darfur from here on end? Does it mean the genocide will miraculously come to a halt?

The entire point of the United Nations was to serve as an international body that would come together in times of political crises and atrocities. Where did we lose this point, I wonder?

Political Squabbling

I'm sure all have heard or read about General Pace's comments about gays and lesbians in the armed forces for the United States. Now, as with all of our stupid political issues in this country, Presidential candidates have begun to take sides and support either the General's view or the opposite view. In the second to last paragraph, Mitt Romney said "He can believe what he wants to, that's the great thing about America -- believe in what you want. But in a governmental setting, the right way to go is to show more of an outpouring of tolerance." Why doesn't every other politician understand that statement? THis country was built on the fundamental rights of FREEDOM. A person can believe whatever they want to believe, but when that belief starts to infringe upon someone else's rights there is an issue. When will political squabbling end. This is a stupid issue for people to take sides....SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. I understand that people have their morals and fundamental ideals in life rooted from religion. I am no different, but why do people need to express dislike and hatred. It sounds stupid, but maybe we have to go back to preschool again and say that if you don't have something nice to say about people don't say it at all. This is stupid political issue. People are dying around the world. Soldiers are being killed, along with many innocent people in Iraq. And all this time, people are starving and people are killing each other in our OWN COUNTRY. Hey, here's a thought, instead of investing over $100 Billion in this defense spending, lets try and make the United States a better place to live before we go out and force other people to live the way "we do". We have enough of our own problems in teh United States that we should fix up before we get caught up in other countries. When will political discourse and action be taken to better the United States instead of hypocrisy and destruction abroad? When will someone step in and handle the important issues in this country instead of making hateful comments about someone's sexual preference?

Gays in the Military are Okay if they Die for their Country -- but not if they're "Out"

Wow. What a revelation. One of the leading generals in the U.S. has called gays "immoral" -- and is strongly in support of the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy in the U.S. military. So are we fighting a holy war or what? What does his opinion have to do with the fact that there are actually gay men and lesbians serving in the U.S. military -- and get this -- dying for the U.S. But I guess it's okay if they're dead gays and lesbians -- at least they didn't "out" themselves. I can only imagine how those gays and lesbians serving and dying for the U.S. must feel when they hear their commander's views on their morality. I wonder if General Pace has ever thought about that? Should this man really be heading up the U.S military effort in Iraq?

Immigration Reform in America: Which Side of the Fence are you On?

I wanted to announce the above panel/debate to be held at Franklin & Marshall College on Wednesday, March 28th at 7:00pm in Stager Hall, Stahr Auditorium. The event is free and open to the public.
The panel/debate will be moderated by Dr. G. Terry Madonna, Director, Center for Politics and Public Affairs, The Floyd Institute, @ Franklin & Marshall College. Panelist will include:

Dr. Steven A. Camarota, Director of Research, Center for Immigration Studies;

Professor Michele Pistone, Director Clinical Program & CARES Clinic, Villanova University School of Law;

Mr. Jack Martin, Special Projects Director, FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform).

Canadian asylum woes

And the Canadians think they are treating their failed asylum seekers badly?
The Toronto Star article talks about the plight of one woman from Zimbabwe who was denied asylum in Canada but because of the tenuous situation in Zimbabwe, she will not be sent back until the socio-political situation improves. Wow. I guess she's lucky that she is not in the U.S. She's upset because she is in legal limbo -- not a permanent resident, questionable access to health care and she has to pay $150 each year to renew her work permit.
What would her situation be like in the U.S., if, for example, she was denied asylum, but had TPS (Temporary Protected Status)? like many Haitians, and Liberians (although that will expire in the fall of 2007).

Meeting a Minuteman

This was an interesting read I found on the NY Times website. It is the story of a group known as Minutemen, which is a group make up of civilians who have dedicated themselves to being vigilant around the borders to stop illegal immigration. Something that particularly struck me about the person interviewed was his belief that he is giving back to the "American people" through his service.
I think this comes to a very important issue as we talk about immigration: how welcoming is too welcoming, and where do we draw the line?

A Subjective discussion about principle Human Rights

Without a doubt the most significant right a person has is the right to life. This phrase ‘right to life’ is commonly used in abortion arguments, however, I use it in its most literal sense. The most compelling dilemma a person or group will ever have to face is the killing vs. letting die distinction. This principle has been discussed from human rights philosophers like John Locke—a social contract theorist, whom (deriving and departing from the Hobbesian view of nature) argued that legitimacy in government is gained through protected natural rights (life, liberty, etc.)—to Immanuel Kant and his discussion of human freedom in Critique of Pure Reason. With a seemingly failed attempt at war in the Middle East, exponential warfare technology, and cases of genocide, the discussion of this most basic—yet fundamental—human right is ever more important.
To show the killing vs. letting die distinction and its severe compelling ability I use the following model.
Situation 1: You are between two ponds. In pond ‘X’ there are 5 people drowning. You do not know any of these people. In pond ‘Y’ there are 10 people drowning. You do not know any of these people. Neither pond can swim. You can only save one group of people. Which do you choose? (Hold your answer for now).
Situation 2: You are riding on a train. At the end of the track there is a pond with 10 people drowning. In the middle of the train track there is a person holding the tracks together above a small canyon. You can both stop the train and save that one person holding together the tracks while the 10 people drown or you can kill him and save the 10 people drowning. Which do you choose?
It seems as if situation 1 most people would choose to save the 10 people over the 5. If only because it is more people saved and less life lost. Situation 1 seems easier to answer because in that instance the actor (you) are not killing the 5 people, but you are letting them die. Situation 2, however, is much more difficult because in order to save the 10 lives the actor must kill someone. Obviously, there is a person would experience a dilemma because his or her direct actions would kill someone.
This raises the question of when is it morally acceptable to kill or let die? What if by killing 10 people we could save 100’s or even 1,000’s? Remember the Burundi Civil War between the Hutu and Tutsi, there was no humanitarian intervention there, governments were merely just ‘letting people die’ they weren’t killing them. Some political critics believed that since the Clinton administration had lost 7-10 Green Berets—highly elite Army units—in Sudan that any more losses due to humanitarian intervention would case a domestic backlash. Remember the Kosovo conflict between the Albanians and Serbs; part of NATO’s justification for intervention was on humanitarian grounds that by killing they could ‘save more lives than were lost’. Granted, it has been debated that NATO’s intervention was so that NATO could expand their powers and possibly increase its member base, but they told the world that they were intervening on a humanitarian base, to save lives by killing.
The killing vs. letting die distinction is integrated within domestic and foreign policy. It is apparent in decisions in war and office. Perhaps, we can understand the loss of life better if we use this rational model to unveil people’s decisions to kill or let die? I’d like to know what you all think.

Bill would mandate nicer term for illegals

This article discusses one Florida State legislator who is trying to get a bill passed that would ban the term "illegal alien" in any state documents. "I personally find the word 'alien' offensive when applied to individuals, especially to children," said Sen. Frederica Wilson, D-Miami. "An alien to me is someone from out of space." She believes it is both offensive and degrading to use refer to a person as an "alien". She preferms the term "undocumented" "They are immigrants, through no fault of their own, not aliens." What are your thoughts on this?

ICC is naming the mass murders in Darfur

The ICC is finally beginning to name names for a conflict that started on the 26th of February 2003, when the Darfur Liberation Front (DLF) claimed they attacked the headquarters of Jebel Marra District. On March 25th rebels took the town of Tine along the Chadian border around the time the Second Sudanese Civil War was ending. The rebels experienced heavy losses from air raids. On April 25th 2003, the Sudan Liberation Army and its joint partner attacked. This conflict is mainly between the Darfur region of western Sudan, mainly between the Janjaweed, and the agricultural non-Baggara people. The Darfur Peace Agreement was signed in May of 2006, but fighting still continues. Recently in January, President Al-Bashir and Bill Richardson have agreed to a cease-fire. The Save Darfur claims that they are going to try and improve humanitarian aid in Darfur. The World Health Organization has estimated over 50,000 deaths since the beginning, then—recently—the British Parliamentary Report has estimated over 300,000 deaths. Now the ICC is trying to bring some sense of justice into this abomination of human behavior.

ICC is naming the mass murders in Darfur

The ICC is finally beginning to name names for a conflict that started on the 26th of February 2003, when the Darfur Liberation Front (DLF) claimed they attacked the headquarters of Jebel Marra District. On March 25th rebels took the town of Tine along the Chadian border around the time the Second Sudanese Civil War was ending. The rebels experienced heavy losses from air raids. On April 25th 2003, the Sudan Liberation Army and its joint partner attacked. This conflict is mainly between the Darfur region of western Sudan, mainly between the Janjaweed, and the agricultural non-Baggara people. The Darfur Peace Agreement was signed in May of 2006, but fighting still continues. Recently in January, President Al-Bashir and Bill Richardson have agreed to a cease-fire. The Save Darfur claims that they are going to try and improve humanitarian aid in Darfur. The World Health Organization has estimated over 50,000 deaths since the beginning, then—recently—the British Parliamentary Report has estimated over 300,000 deaths. Now the ICC is trying to bring some sense of justice into this abomination of human behavior.