White House Puts Face on North Korean Human Rights

The article calls to mind Schulz' book "In Our Own Best Interest" and how human rights and politics can get complicated. In anticipation of the Chinese presidents visit to the White House, many groups have been putting pressure on President Bush to take a stand for human rights. Christian groups and other politicians are urging Bush to discuss China's actions in deporting an asylum seeker from N.Korea. A N.Korean woman managed to escape from N. Korea and enter into China. Instead of granting her asylum China sent her back. N.Korea is a well-known abuser of human rights and Bush has previously denounced them for their actions. But, as the article mentions, the U.S. has been too concerned with the nuclear threat posed by N.Korea to bother with "human rights." Since arriving here on Tuesday, Hu Jintao, the Chinese president, has been visiting with important buisness leaders such as Bill Gates and the chairmen of Starbucks. His trip is very much focused around economics, since China is growing in both political and economic power. This presents a tricky situation for President Bush. Will Bush speak out about China's actions or ignore it for fear of disrupting a political relationship?

High Court annuls asylum for white S.Africans

This article discusses "kinship ties" and persecution within the family. The Thomas family has already faced threats (car vandalized, dog poisoned) against their family by blacks in South Africa, but is that enough to constitute persecution? The courts do not think so. The California appeals court ruled that the Thomas family was eligible for asylum or refugee status, but the Supreme Court ruled that this case should have been sent back to the Board of Immigration Appeals. Should "kinship ties" be considered a social group under asylum law? For now, kinship ties are not considered to be a social group and the Thomas family will probably have to pack up and leave America.

Gays not safe anywhere with 'gay bashing'

Last week a U.S. senior news producer with CBS and his co-worker suffered severe injuries after being attacked by 4 men and 2 women outside of a gay bar in St. Maarten. One of the injured men required a titanium plate in his head, the other is still in intensive care, suffering from severe neurological damage.
So, when I read things like this, people like MadMax make my blood boil. It's intolerance and and discrimination that leads to incidents like the one in St. Maarten. What I don't understand is why some "straight people" thing they have the right and duty to gay bash. What did those two men ever do to them?

Asylum detentions 'breaking law'

I thought it might be interesting to look at this article to compare our detention facilities and practices to the U.Ks. Britian believes it is neccesary to detain asylum seekers to control immigration. While others argue that the government can't lock people up simply because they are seeking asylum.

Si se puede...

This chant was heard at many immigration rallies across the nation yesterday. There were protest in more than 140 cities across 39 different states, all in favor of giving the 11-12 million undocumented immigrations a chance to live the American Dream. The protestors want to send a clear message that immigrants are fed up and tired, and that they too work hard to have a chance to live in this country. The question that this CNN article deals with, is do these undocumented immigrants deserve the right to become legal although they have broken the law by coming to America illegally? The article ends with with a brief overview of some options that Congress has been looking at to deal with the hot topic of immigration.

Asylum seeker can stay with her lover

Ok, so I found another article. This article discusses the right to protect families under Article 8 of Human Rights law. It stresses somes of the main topics we have discussed in class. A "life sentence" will be placed on this couple and either their family will stay together or be torn apart. I think that keeping families together is important and that some type of system should be made to try to keep families together, whether it is in a host country or an individual's country of origin.

Also, the article discusses past violent abuse on one of the women by her former husband. Will women who have been abused be the next social group under asylum law? What would the consquences of that be?

I think that strict regulations need to be enforced and followed when dealing with asylum cases, but I also feel that it is just not humane to separate families. Some individuals do not have anything to rely on in their lives besides family members. In the end, if we cannot even have enough compassion to keep loved ones together, how can we ever have enough sympathy, morality or compassion to deal with giving human beings international rights or legal protection? I am in no way saying certain people should not be deported, but shouldn't there be some type of way to keep families together if they want to be?

BURUNDI-RWANDA: Gov't to expel asylum seekers

I found this article to be interesting and possibly controversial. Asylum seekers from Rwanda are going to be sent back to their country if they are not eligible for refugee status. Aren't refugees and asylum seekers different? How can a country throw away requests for asylum by thousands of people at one time? Though every case may not meet the grounds for asylum, each case should be individually heard. What will happen to all of the individuals who never got a chance to have their stories heard? Is it okay for asylum seekers to fall through the cracks thousands at a time?

Much needed Immigration Reform: Terrorists vs. Victims

In a recent NYT editorial (see link above), one of the most disturbing aspects of recent changes to U.S. Immigration and asylum law is the provision that someone who was actually a victim of terrorism, can now be considered a terrorist. The editorial focuses on several real examples of individuals who were victims of terrorists, but because they dug a grave for Colombian rebels (which could have been their own) or were forced to be sexual slaves for Liberian guerrillas, they do not qualify for resettlement. As the NYT editorial points out, the law makes no exception for "duress".
This goes against all good moral judgement and fairness. How can this be?

Trump Card: National Security

I’m BAAAACCCKKKK!!!! Hehehe

So, I was reading a Wall Street Journal article (“How Patriot Act Helped Convict Man in Baby-Food Ring” by John D. McKinnon 4 April 2006) and it really got me thinking about human rights, terrorism, national security and all that mumbo jumbo.

While I’ll include snippets from the article here and there (it’s a really long article but well written), the basic issue is the following:

A Lebanese American citizen is being charged in a state level criminal case with evidence used from federal-intelligence gathering capabilities. Usually, local authorities will ask a local judge for a warrant to conduct surveillance on a suspect. Regardless if the suspect is charged with a crime or not, the (ex)-suspect is given full access to the warrant, why it was issued, and all evidence collected. In this case, however, the evidence gathered against the suspect was issued at the federal-level (in a separate investigation related to terrorism not his criminal case) under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Service Act (FISA) by a federal judge who, for various reasons, did find some sort of probable cause. Moreover, the suspect, regardless if they’re charged or not, does not know or have any access to any evidence detailing why the individual was being observed…citing national security concerns (i.e. if methods are revealed, even to true terrorists, then terrorists would understand how U.S. intelligence capabilities work and develop more advanced methods of planning and implementing potential attacks).

Below, is a snippet from the article supporting the suspects side…

**Keep in mind that the FISA warrant is DIFFERENT from the recent controversial warrantless wiretaps that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to conduct.**

Mr. Jammal is appealing, contending that FISA evidence used against him was illegally obtained and crippled his defense. He says the charges against him were trumped up by a government determined to show progress in the war against terror.

Even with warrants, critics fear defendants' rights to a fair trial will be eroded, as authorities use intelligence-gathering techniques to pursue criminal cases. "If evidence is procured by methods that wouldn't stand up to the Fourth Amendment, the courts are going to have to stop it," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York, top Democrat on the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution.

Clifford Fishman, a Catholic University law professor who has studied wiretap laws, says using FISA-authorized wiretaps to bolster an already pending criminal case "would be a clear misuse of the law." A spokeswoman for Mr. Charlton, the prosecutor, said that the "basis for the FISA intercept was unrelated to [Mr. Jammal's] involvement in organized retail theft," adding that it was conducted by a separate investigative team. She said officials can't reveal reasons for seeking the FISA warrant.

As Mr. Jammal's trial approached, the FISA-authorized wiretaps also posed difficulties for his court-appointed lawyer, Michael Reeves. The government insisted that Mr. Reeves obtain security clearance to examine classified evidence in the case and agree not to talk about the evidence with anyone, even his client.

Mr. Jammal insists a review of the voluminous, classified FISA evidence would show that he warned would-be sellers that he would not accept stolen property. He also says that the tapes could have helped undercut the testimony of former associates who agreed to plea bargains and testified against him

Below are snippets arguing for the government’s side…

Andrew McCarthy, who prosecuted Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman on terror charges in New York, says the old dividing wall between foreign intelligence operations and domestic criminal investigations doesn't make sense in the fight against terrorism. "They usually commit an array of garden-variety crime in the course of trying to conduct terrorism operations.” That means investigating crimes and gathering intelligence through plea bargains and other techniques can be an important tool.
Paul Charlton, the U.S. attorney for Arizona whose office brought the case against Mr. Jammal, says in an interview that existing procedures properly balance the rights of defendants with the government's need to maintain secrecy to protect national security. He notes that, as in all FISA cases, a federal judge approved the initial application for the Jammal warrant privately. Prosecutors were "scrupulous" about avoiding suggestions at trial that Mr. Jammal was linked to terrorism, he adds, trying to ensure he got a fair trial.

While Mr. Reeves pondered the matter, he asked the court to order the government either to reveal the basis for issuing the FISA warrant so he could challenge its legality or bar the evidence altogether. The government countered with an affidavit from then-Attorney General John Ashcroft who said telling defense lawyers why the FISA warrant was issued "would harm the national security." The federal trial judge, Frederick J. Martone, sided with the government.

So, all the needed “core” evidence above…what do you all think?

No Guidelines on Empty 'No Torture' Promises

This article is interesting because it discusses how many legal issues or difficulties would arise if guidelines for diplomatic assurances that returned people, deportees, would not be tortured existed. Experts from the Council of Europe met in France to deal with the issue of returning people back to countries that they know will torture them anyway. It would be very controversial to see what the United States' stance would be on this issue, especially whether or not it was dependent on present political relationships with certain countries. At this rate, it seems that the U.S. may be accepting of sending people back to be tortured since Cheney supported torture and black sites exist around the world for our administration's use...