Indian Immigrant Set on Fire in Italy

This past Sunday a 35-year-old Indian immigrant was beaten and set on fire after falling asleep on a train station bench outside of Rome. Three young men believed to be responsible for this brutal crime were arrested on Monday.

Some believe that this was not an arbitrary act of violence. It may very well highlight attitudes towards immigrants in Italian society. In recent years, many Italian citizens have developed negative attitudes towards immigrants due to the rising number of immigrant arrests for high profile crimes (for example, the murder of an Italian admiral’s wife in Rome).

Italian President Giorgio Napolitano seems to be taking the right approach. He has issued a statement warning against “any display and risk of xenophobia, racism and violence.”

However, the words of Carabinieri Major Emanuele Gaeta are appalling. After investigators revealed that the attackers were suspected of having been under the influence of alcohol and drugs, he stated, “We can exclude racism as a motive because they were so high.”

This 35-year-old Indian immigrant was beaten and then set on fire. He narrowly escaped death and currently suffers from burns on 40% of his body. This crime against him could have vast implications for the safety of other immigrants living in Italy, and the possibility of this danger should not be masked. This crime should not be dismissed as an arbitrary act of violence. The fact that the attackers were abusing drugs does not eliminate the possibility that race and nationality may have been a motivating factor in the crime. Should drug use really encourage us to overlook the fact that this may have been a hate crime? Should it automatically exempt these men from facing the repercussions of such a crime?

A Delicate Choice

On January 24th, Pope Benedict XVI recently reinstated four renegade bishops into the Catholic Church. These men were members of the Society of St. Pius X, a conservative Catholic group that opposes the reforms made by the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s. Pope John Paul II excommunicated the men after they declared themselves bishops without papal recognition. Now, in an effort to consolidate the beliefs of the Catholic church, the Pope Benedict has reached out to the Society of St. Pius X. In his view, the Church is losing influence in an ever more secular world, and he hopes to avoid a schism which may seriously compromise the power of the Church. The controversy over these reinstatements surrounds Richard Williamson. In an interview last week he denied the enormity of the Holocaust. He as also suggested that the US government staged the 9/11 attacks in order to justify an invasion of the Middle East. For many, these comments represent a backwards step for Catholic-Jewish relations. While the suffering of the Holocaust signifies an important event in collective memory, the Pope's actions have the threat of alienating large segments of people.
Chester Gillis, a professor at Geeorgetown University said, “I don’t think the Vatican doesn’t care about Jewish-Christian relations, but at least it appears that internal church matters trump external relations.” It seems then that the price of healing internal rifts comes at the denial of some of the worst human rights atrocities in history. If the Pope can easily write off the Holocaust, what else can he ignore for religious unity?
Shame on you, Pope Benedict.

Getting Away with Torture

This editorial talks about the lack of accountability on behalf of the U.S. government concerning the situation in Guantanamo Bay. As noted, it is possible that the U.S. has violated the War Crimes Act of 1996, the Geneva Conventions and the Uniform Code of Military Justice by using several methodically planned means of torture. Who is going to hold the U.S. government accountable? The people? Half of whom who probably have no idea where Guantanamo Bay is and what might be going on there? The ICC? As Sara noted the U.S. isn't even a member and the body lacks any real authority anyway.

I don't know who is going to step up and take responsibility for this, but Americans need to realize that what's occurring in Guantanamo has nothing to do with justice, and it sacrifices the principles we're supposedly trying to preserve, further endangering our nation by breeding international contempt and hatred. If we condemn other nations for acts of torture and allow their victims to seek refuge here, we are saying torture does not have a place in those societies. Why are we allowing it in ours?

The Limits of the ICC

This article spotlights the powerlessness of the International Criminal Court (ICC). This article profiles two of the men in positions of power who led and supported the crimes against humanity committed by the Janjaweed militia in Sudan. While the ICC "issued arrest warrants" one year ago, the Sudanese government says the ICC "has no jurisdiction to try Sudanese suspects". What then is the role of the ICC? Is it enough to encourage member states to voluntarily extradite those who commit gross human rights violations to be tried in front of the national community? Sudan won't extradite the suspects, the U.S. isn't even a member (lucky for former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, among others): What is the proper role of the ICC?

Pennsylvania town taking immigration into their own hands

In Hazleton, PA - a town not too far from Lancaster - the mayor passed a measure that gave authorities "extraordinary power" when dealing with illegal immigrants. The law was actually targeted at employers and landlords who dealt with illegal immigrants. Since it passed in Hazleton, federal court has deemed it unconstitutional. Still, the desire to pass the law and the support it has received from Hazleton's non-Latino population has caused tension in the town. Hispanic residents who are citizens of the US are targeted the same as illegal immigrants, and discriminated against in town. Hazleton also blames increased crime on the illegal population.
I think this raises interesting questions about immigration control and policy in the United States. The mayor, Lou Barletta, (who now plans to run for congress) passed the bill because it was his duty to protect the (legal) residents of his town. He also mentioned that the officials in Washington weren't doing their jobs in this area. Should towns and cities be able to control the illegal immigrant population as they wish? Is it important for the safety of each municipality? Or should it be federally regulated? Hazleton's story suggests that towns want more control over their own populations, however unconstitutional it may seem.

A New U.S Border Patrol?

Should President Carter Have Met with Hamas?

The former president says that the issue is not that he met with Hamas, widely regarded as a terrorist organization, but that the United States and Israel refuse to. Should organizations considered to be terrorist be included in diplomatic dialogue if the goal is peace? Or would this encourage groups to employ terrorist tactics to gain a voice? Was former President Carter out of place and did his meeting legitimate a terrorist group, or are the policies of not negotiating with terrorists outdated and impeding the peace process?

Undocumented Immigrants & Health Care

A very interesting story -- a 21 year old undocumented immigrant with 4 liver transplants -- who should foot the bill? U.S. taxpayers?

What Issues Should DHS be Focusing On?

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has recently placed even more emphasis on state compliance with the Real ID Act. Part of this initiative pushes for national IDs, as opposed to state IDs, in order to reduce the prevalence of identification fraud after the September 11th terrorist attacks. Many states are opposing this Act, claiming "bullying the states is not the answer, nor is threatening their citizens' rights to travel." State representatives are also rejecting the Act on the basis of the financial burden associated with it. However, if states fail to comply with the Act within a certain designated time frame, DHS has stated it will refuse to regard state ID cards as acceptable forms of federal identification.

Other issues addressed by the Senate Judiciary Committee in relation to DHS's practices included the current waiting list for naturalizations, meaning that many citizens-to-be who have paid their taxes and are productive members of society will not be able to vote in the 2008 Presidential Election.

Should DHS be concentrating on the Real ID Act when there are naturalization orders to process? Is the Department perhaps lending too much importance to the Act in light of Post-9/11 sentiment? Or should matters of national security actually be the focus of the Department of Homeland Security?

Should President Bush Boycott the Opening of the Olympic Games?

Protests have occurred around the world regarding the decision to hold the Olympic Games in Beijing. (This issue was brought to the blog earlier in the semester in an article about Steven Spielberg's opposition). China has been placed not only in a spotlight of prominence, but also under a microscope of international scrutiny, particularly regarding alleged human rights abuses. The argument is not only about China's human right's policies, but that like the title of the article in the link, the Olympics are "Worsening China Rights". How so? Well a perfect example would be the sentencing of activist of Hu Jia which this article suggests has occurred so that he will be silenced during the games.
With that context, I chose to post this article for the following section. The author writes, "US President George W Bush is facing calls to boycott the Games' opening. "It would be clearly inappropriate for you to attend the Olympic Games in China, given the increasingly repressive nature of that country's government," a group of 15 US politicians wrote in a letter to Mr Bush on Tuesday.Mr Bush has said he plans to attend the ceremony but Germany's Angela Merkel says she will not. French President Nicolas Sarkozy has not ruled out a boycott." This passage of the article stood out to me for several reasons. If the issue is China's human rights abuses, what substantive effect could a boycott of the Opening Ceremonies achieve? I don't personally believe there are any. The argument, I believe, would therefore be that heads of state should boycott for symbolic reasons, which leads me to several questions. How useful is a symbolic act? I don't think many would argue that President Bush boycotting the ceremonies would effect the human rights policies of a sovereign nation, but at the same time, what does it say to and about our nation if our President attends when other heads of state (perhaps more enlightened?) are not? Does it matter? Should it matter? Are we afraid to draw attention to our own human rights controversies? Is our president ignoring international protests? Do human rights controversies of the host country even have a role in the discussion of the Olympic Games at all?