Not a Holiday Destination

contributed by Laura González

Former Marine Becomes Face of New Vieques Battle

by THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
October 11, 2009

Marrero is a key witness in a lawsuit seeking billions of dollars in compensation for illnesses that past and current Vieques residents have linked to the bombing range, where the U.S. and its allies trained for conflicts from Vietnam to Iraq. ... Marrero, who was born in Puerto Rico and grew up in New York City, has had colon cancer twice. He is losing his vision and suffers from more than dozen other illnesses, including Lou Gehrig's disease, that he believes are lingering effects of his 18 months at Camp Garcia. He said he was recently diagnosed with a new bout of cancer that is inoperable in part because of a lung disease that requires him to stay on oxygen around the clock."

Click here to read the entire article on 'The New York Times' website.
Read Laura's article about Vieques, 'Paradise Lost,' in the latest issue of The Yale Journal of Human Rights.

Homeless in New Haven

Contributed by Sunnie Jaye Tölle

On the way home from basketball practice Sunnie met Will, a New Haven homeless man who frequents Temple Street. Will urged her to share this Youtube interview of him (embedded below) with her friends. Sunnie is at a loss as to how a man becomes homeless merely by losing his job. The only people Sunnie spots on the street in her hometown of Zurich, Switzerland are people who have "...really messed up- drug addicts, criminals. In Switzerland there are too many safety nets, too many social programs that prevent you from losing your home as soon as you lose your job."

Has America failed Will? Or has Will failed himself?

A Predictable Future

By Ashley Gutierrez, Filipina

Silliman College, Yale 2010

Will the Philippines put its foot down against the United States (U.S.)? The Department of Foreign Affairs (Philippines) is reviewing the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), which governs the treatment of American troops engaged in joint military exercises in the Philippines, after recommendations from the Senate and the House Human Rights Committee. There are complaints of the VFA being a "downright unconstitutional treaty" and that the Philippines has been getting the "short end of the stick." Highlighted by the case of the American Marine placed under United States' custody last year instead of in a Philippine prison after raping a Filipina, the claims of the VFA being "lopsided" is a fact that I personally believe most Filipinos know about - and have chosen to ignore.

Or will that now change?

Re-evaluating or possibly terminating the VFA is a bold move. Yes, it will do a lot for Philippine sovereignty. Yes, it will affect RP (Republic of the Philippines)- U.S. relations. But the VFA is also necessary for stability in the region and the fight against terrorism.

That said, I am almost positive of how this will turn out: The review will indeed find that the VFA is lopsided. There will be many recommendations for change. The U.S. is getting the most out of this deal. But nothing will change. Because at the end of the day, the Philippines is still too dependent on the U.S. The country is too unstable at the moment given the conflict between the government and the Muslims in Mindanao. President Arroyo is trying to forge a strong relationship with Obama before the 2010 Presidential elections. The Philippines needs the U.S. much more than it needs us.

In short, once again, the Philippines will bend backwards to accommodate the U.S.

Read more on this issue here.

LGBT Hater Gets a Stage at Toads

From: Name Suppressed
Date: September 14, 2009 1:25:15 AM EDT
Subject: Violent hate singer at Toad's Place New Haven, CT

Hey guys,

I wanted to share with you an email I received from a friend about Buju Banton coming to Toad's on Wednesday: Reggae singer Buju Banton began his US tour last night in Philadelphia. His shows in Chicago, Cincinnati, Columbus, Minneapolis, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Dallas, and Houston have all been cancelled. That's because there's a big campaign going on to try to get him cancelled everywhere because of his hateful singing about gay people. I don't mean the usual "no homo" bullshit in hip- hop. He sings about torturing and murdering "queers". It seems he's not just talk, either. He was charged for being a part of a group of about a dozen people who allegedly beat six men believed to be homosexual. One of the victims lost an eye. You can see why people would be outraged by his tour, then, and why most major promoters canceled his events.

But he's still coming to Toad's, this Wednesday! Seems like something we should address. Ideally we should try to force them to cancel it last minute, or, if that doesn't happen, we should let everyone know what kind of person is coming to Toad's.

Here's some information--

The main web page for the campaign to cancel his tour: http://cancelbujubanton.wetpaint.com/ (including explanations of his homophobic lyrics as well as a list of his shows and which ones have been cancelled)

LA Gay & Lesbian Center's press release about promoters AEG Live and Live Nation canceling their shows with him: http://www.lagaycenter.org/site/DocServer/2009-08-28_Live_Nation_and_AEG_Cancel_Buju_Banton.pdf?docID=7541

The relevant Facebook group: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=124784767349

If you have a minute, and you feel so inclined, send an email to Hollis@toadsplace.com encouraging them to cancel this concert on Wednesday. What a shame it would be for New Haven to be the exception out of all of these places refusing to hand a pulpit over to someone who spews hate and violence.

Thanks, Name Suppressed

The name's Khan. Shahrukh Khan.

by Sarika Arya

Indians speak over 400 different dialects and devote themselves to as many different religions and spiritual followings. The country finds common ground in its worship of cricket players and movie stars who are demigods among the population of more than 1 billion. Among even these select few, some, like Shahrukh Khan, stand out as Herculean when compared to the rest.

Khan is an actor (he has been in more than 70 films), film producer, television host, and a Bollywood king; which is really film star royalty since Bollywood is the largest film industry in the world. Bollywood produces 850 films annually (about 2 films a day), while Hollywood churns out about 450 films annually. Khan is slowly gaining prominence among Western audience who were hitherto still clueless about Bollywood. In 2008 Newsweek named Khan one of the 50 most powerful people in the world.

So, Khan is an internationally recognized name: but, as the megastar realized, not always for the right reasons.

On Friday, at Newark Liberty International airport, Khan was detained for inspections. Immediately, tales of racial profiling hit Indian newsstands, enraging Khan’s extensive fan base. Apparently inspired by the incident, 'The Times of India’ published this affronted, defensive, (and oddly patriotic) segment:

My name is Khan? Too bad. SRK feels the heat of American paranoia.
Chidanand Rajghatta and Bharati Dubey, 15 August 2009

WASHINGTON/MUMBAI: “My name is Khan.” “Oh it is, is it? Step aside, please.”

The way it was related, that might well have been the opening exchange between Shahrukh Khan and an unnamed, uninformed, super-empowered US immigration official who had no idea (and didn’t care) that the man in front of him is the star of a film by the same name (My name is Khan), much less that he is a universal Bollywood icon.

SRK, as the actor star is known by his popular acronym, was asked to indeed step aside for a “secondary inspections” at Newark’s ironically named (in this context) Liberty International airport on Friday en route to an event to celebrate India’s Independence Day in Chicago, President Barack Obama’s hometown. But that was only after a “primary inspection.”

(Click the link above to read the entire piece on 'The Times of India' website.)

Apparently, Khan, who has travelled to the US before and was never singled out then, believes that he was questioned because of his Muslim name and heritage. “I told them I was a movie star,” he was quoted as saying. But Khan’s stardom did not shield him from detention and a barrage of irrelevant questions, excused away by security reasons.

It has become disturbingly easy to generalize notions of human rights, simplifying the particular down to vague umbrella terms like “security,” “peace,” and “freedom.” In doing so, specific human rights law has been forgotten as governments tries to forward greater, unspecific, ‘humanitarian’ missions. The means justifies the ends. America tortures for security, bombs for peace, and detains for freedom. Paraphrasing Harold Koh, Dean of Yale Law School, in recent times America, instead of being a country of “zero tolerance” has become a country of “zero accountability.”

According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the US bureau of Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP’s) “suspicionless search policy” violates the constitutional rights and privacy rights, as well as the right to freedom of speech, inquiry, and association, of international travellers. CBP is even permitted to search laptops and other electronic devices of passengers, retaining their personal information indefinitely, regardless of whether they are suspected of wrongdoing in the first place. Human rights groups claim that CBP’s policies allow them to severely discriminate against travelers who are, or even appear to be, Muslim, Arab, or South Asian – those most associated with extremism and terrorism in light of the 9/11 attacks. Towards it end, the Bush administration issued a report to the United Nations (UN) Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination stating it was making efforts to end racial profiling, but included an absolute reservation against previous U.N. recommendations concerning “national security” or “border integrity.” Bush- era policies have become status quo in airport security, although the Obama administration has pledged to reverse this effect.

Racial profiling in airports can actually undermine security initiatives. According to Reginal Shuford, a senior staff attorney with ACLU’s Racial Justice Program, “It is a dangerous and slippery slope when we allow our government to take away a person’s rights because of his speech or ethnic background. Racial profiling is illegal and ineffective and has no place in a democratic society.” This does not mean security should be absent in American airports; far from it. "American paranoia" is very much so justified, to a certain extent. Recent events prove that it is necessary, more than ever, to maintain high vigilance – especially in ports of entry. But nations must be careful that in protecting human rights and civil liberties, they do not actually provoke and instigate the desire to revolt against such measures. For instance, detaining international Muslims is not a good way to promote peace and gain respect for democracy in an already alienated part of the world. Continental Airways employees are still suffering the backlash of frisking A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, a Muslim, Indian V.V.I.P (very very important person), and, not to mention, the former president of India, before he boarded a flight to New York back in April 2009. A standard security procedure should be required for all travelers (whether they be tourist, businessman, movie star or president) but further detention should only be implemented when suspicion is warranted by very specific behavior – one’s ethnic makeup does not qualify as a security breach that justifies a round of humiliating questions, full body pat- down, and retainment of one's private documents, in an isolated back room. In the case that security officials grossly misjudge someone, apologies, for the goodwill of all, must be made. Being treated in an otherwise degrading manner would only encourage hateful sentiments, fuelling desire to actually commit an act of terrorism. Big ideas about human rights can be reinforced and actually achieved by ensuring the detailed intricacies of human rights, those rights enshrined in national and international law, are respected.

US officials disputed the claim that Khan was detained. CBP stated that the agency routinely questioned foreigners and that Khan was questioned for exactly 66 minutes – not, as is being reported, 2 hours. Following intervention by American and Indian officials, Khan was ultimately released and is now focusing on completing his next film, which has since become a kind of art-imitates-life-piece, “My Name is Khan,” in which Shahrukh stars as a man subjected to racial profiling in America.

Chris Brown is Sorry

20- year old hip- hop artist, Chris Brown, has released a video apologizing for violently abusing his then girlfriend, the singer, Rihanna.



Sadly for him, he has a lot to be sorry for. According to the report filed, Chris Brown strangled Rihanna and hit her so severely that she bled from the mouth and endured several bruises.

The case highlights the prevailing problem of violence against women, and in particular domestic and dating abuse, even in developed and democratic countries like the United States. In United States, a woman is raped every 6 minutes and battered every 15 seconds. In most cases, the perpetrator knows his victim and has witnessed or personally experienced abuse in the past - Chris Brown was no exception, he saw the effects of domestic violence in his own family.

While the United States has a federal law, the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, it has not legally committed itself to the United Nations' Convention on the Elimination Against the Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), putting it in a league of nations that includes Afghanistan, Iran, and Sudan. Although the United States has signed CEDAW, America is not bound by international law to respect women's rights, until it ratifies the convention.

A Right of the 21st Century: The Right to DNA Testing

-- Contributed by Brendan Ternus

New York TIMES Justices Reject Inmate Right to DNA Tests

By ADAM LIPTAK

Published: June 18, 2009

WASHINGTON — Prisoners have no constitutional right to DNA testing that might prove their innocence, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday in a 5-to-4 decision.

The court divided along familiar ideological lines, with the majority emphasizing that 46 states already have laws that allow at least some prisoners to gain access to DNA evidence.

“To suddenly constitutionalize this area,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority, “would short-circuit what looks to be a prompt and considered legislative response.”

Click here to read the full article in the New York Times.