Israel Detains Al Jazeera Employee for Unknown Amount of Time

Samer Allawi is the head of Al Jazeera's Afghanistan office. Allawi has lived in Pakistan since 1984, though originally from the West Bank and Palestinian, and worked in Afghanistan as long. While on his way home from visiting family in the West Bank, Allawi was detained by the Israeli military. He has not been charged, but is suspected of participation in Hamas. Allawi, Al Jazeera, and many others continuously reaffirm that he has no criminal record and is not politically active, but he has been held for six weeks without charge by the Israeli military in various prisons. Human Rights Watch is calling for his release along with Al Jazeera, and his family. The Israeli officers have threatened Allawi in attempts to force a confession, which he still resists. His lawyer has been barred from visiting with him and his family has not been allowed to see him at all throughout this process. Allawi's family has taken up temporary residence in the West Bank to stay near him regardless of their inability to visit him. Israel, as a state that has signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, should know that they are required to inform any person detained of charges immediately upon arrest and that they cannot withhold council.

This action by Israel goes against the basic legal human rights that are recognized. First, the right to due process, or innocent before proven guilty. Samer Allawi has not even been told what he has been accused of specifically or when they will finally charge or release him. Second, his right to fair trial has been infringed upon in that they will not even allow him to seek his council at all at the given moment. Third, freedom from violence. Allawi has been threatened multiple times in attempt to garner a confession, which he refuses to give as he is likely innocent. Fourth and finally, the right to have a family has been taken from him. The Israeli prisons are refusing him the opportunity to see his family at all.

I, personally, find this appalling. It seems that Israel is only holding him because he is Palestinian and has a high profile job. From what I can gather, he has never shown any allegiance to any islamist or terrorist movement. He works for one of the most impartial news stations in the world and has not lived in the West Bank since 1984, which is 27 years ago. It seems absurd to spontaneously detain someone that shows no traits or leanings towards these groups at all. It is also entirely against the alleged values of the Israeli government to carry out such actions with a person. They have signed onto many international documents concerning human rights and the rights of people detained within their borders. To what most would say the most progressive state in the Middle East, it seems like it is doing many of the same things that it's assumed adversaries would do in similar situations.

Do you think that Israel is justified in detaining Samer Allawi? Should he be released immediately if there is not enough evidence to support actual charges? Is there an underlying reason to Israel's actions due to the current vote in the United Nations on the possibility of a Palestinian state?

Wrongful Executions in the Biggest World Power

At 11:08pm on September 21, 2011, Troy Davis was announced dead after receiving his execution after the announcement that his sentence would not be commuted. The problem with this particular execution is that the case against him had fallen apart over his years on Death Row. Troy Davis was accused of the murder of an off-duty Savannah Police Officer, Mark MacPhail in 1989. Of the nine witnesses that testified against him originally, seven have recanted. With this much reasonable doubt, one would think that the court system would stall the execution for further investigation and yet, they did not. The United States Supreme Court, the Georgia Supreme Court, and the Georgia Governor all refused any action to stop this possibly baseless execution of a man who may have been innocent. It calls into question the purpose of the Death Penalty and the aptitude of the US government system. A huge outcry against the act came from the public. Protests and vigils popped up all over the country, though most prominently in Georgia. Pleas were made to as many government officials as possible to attempt to stay this execution and yet it still came to be.

The biggest human rights violation is that of the right to life. Many people see rights as a give and take. You take someone else's rights away, you forfeit yours, but if there is any possibility that the wrong person as been accused of taking those rights away their rights should be restored, in my opinion. The right to a fair trial was also dismissed in this case, if you ask me. Was all the evidence re-evaluated? I highly doubt it or his execution would have been pushed at least a week or so down from its original date. The rights to life and fair trial are incredibly important to human rights ideals and to deny them with such doubt cast upon the original trial is an injustice.

As I was listening to the live coverage of Troy Davis's case I was sick to my stomach.It seemed clear to me that there was too much doubt to put this man to death without further inquiry. Someone who denied his crime even up to his last words is not a guilty man. It seems too much to me that the government of the United States and of Georgia only wanted someone to pay for the crime and at that point they did not seem to care if it was the correct person. All of this puts the Death Penalty even further into question for me and several other people in this country. If there is even a small likelihood that the person is innocent should we allow the Death Penalty to be even pulled into play? I can't for the life of me understand the use of the death penalty. To me it says, "We're going to kill you for killing someone, but we will not get any punishment for taking your life at all." I cannot agree with that in any sense.

Should the Death Penalty exist when there are still possibly innocent men being executed in the United States? Why has the United States not gotten rid of this punishment when so many of the European and other western countries have? Do you think that what happened to Troy Davis was justified?

Even the Highest Fall

I've never been one to deny that my country is flawed. People tend to get angry with me for

my opinions on what standards the United States should hold itself to due to its self-claimed title as World Power. One of the many issues that truly makes my skin crawl is that of torture. We all know that it has been a means of intelligence for some time in our society, but is something that many people like to think of as a necessary evil. I disagree. Human Rights Watch is calling for the investigation of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and George Tenet due to their involvement with the torture programs going on in the United States' military. There has been scandal after scandal where torture has been uncovered on our own bases, in which people are enraged and saddened across the country. But, never enough to take a real stand against it. The United States is not holding up its end of the bargain in relation to the Convention on Torture. We, of all people, should understand that it is not okay to cause people increased discomfort and pain just for the sake of information or even pleasure. It is truly uncanny to me that this has gone on so long without there being some great uproar.

You may ask what human rights this violates. Torture violates many human rights including: security of person, protection against torture and cruel and inhuman punishment, and humane treatment when detained or imprisoned. Security of person just falls under the right for a person to have dominion over their own body and self and not be in fear of forced pain or discomfort. Protection against torture and cruel and inhuman punishment is incredibly straight forward and this is a direct violation of this right in every aspect. The third is easy as well because to be tortured you typically have to be in the custody of the country or group who are inflicting it.

Torture is not okay. It never will be. To torture any person is to insinuate that they are somehow less of a person than another. We are all humans. If you do not want something to happen to you then you should not treat another human in kind. Everything about the former American torture policy is wrong and those that put it into action should have to answer to it in some way. The United States is not just some normal country, we have taken on the name and responsibilities of a World Power, of the Hegemon. We must hold ourselves to a slightly higher standard as an example and as what some would considered the moral standard. We cannot expect any more than what we give and act of ourselves. I believe that President Obama should call these men out for their follies and wage an investigation into it. Treating humans as pawns is not in the American Way or the Way of the World. Everyone must learn that at some point.

Do you believe that torture can be justified? Is it okay because the US is the top dog or should the US be even more against it because it is? Why do people treat it so lightly in the Untied States? Why do they not rage against it as most would think necessary?

Bombings Gone Wild

Recently, tensions between Israel and the Palestinian community have risen due to mutual use of civilian targets. Palestine's many militant groups abandoned the tentative peace that had been developed with the Israelis. On August 18th, the Israeli military allegedly bombed a home in which 6 members of the Popular Resistance Committees where apparently staying at and killed them as well as one of the members young son. Since then, the Palestinian militant groups have bombed Israel indiscriminately in retaliation. Responses to these attacks have only been more attacks on Palestinian areas. There has been almost an entire breakdown in any positive relations between the two sides of this argument.

These attacks explicitly violate the right to life set down under Human Rights. Bombing anything but a military target is against the human rights of civilians who are not an active part of any attack. Civilians are not typically willing members of conflict and often are targeted to drop morale. Both sides of this issue are at fault in some sense and there should be more peace talks or forced action to try and stop the hostility. If that does not happen then it is likely that more civilians will be killed for no good reason other than this endless fight for revenge against each other.

It seems unfair that civilians get just as much blame as the extremists among them. But this happens in every culture and with every group that has extremists. All we can do to stop it is to admit to ourselves that every culture and nation is full of people who carry beliefs of varying degrees that can span the widest ocean. Can we do that? Will Israel and Palestine ever live together in harmony? Can peace be reached when two nations lay claim to the same territory?

The Woes of the Dutch Transgendered Community

Human Rights Watch recently reported that the Dutch in the Netherlands are violating the human rights of transgendered citizens. The article states that "the government should revise article 28 of the civil code, which requires transgender people to take hormones and undergo surgery to alter their bodies and be permanently and irreversibly sterilized" (HRW). This is obviously a gross infringement upon transgendered rights as citizens and humans. Several different groups have analyzed the affects that such requirements can have on children and adults dealing with these issues, such as confusion in the workplace and public due to their appearance versus their legal gender or the continuous humiliation and struggles created by it.

This could be found as a human rights issue in relation to freedom of expression, equality of rights without discrimination, and liberty and security of person. A person should be allowed to express themselves in any way they wish. If a person identifies as another gender then they should be allowed to express that side of them without worry of consequence. The article violates the equality of rights of any person because where a person of cis-gender can free be themselves without hinderance, this is not true of the transgendered community in the Netherlands. The same reasoning can be placed with the liberty and security of person. A person should be allowed to be themselves no matter what that entails. Forcing a medical procedure is not in any sense intrinsic to the identity of a person's gender.

I, personally, cannot even begin to understand the reason that this article has lasted so long. Though in its induction it was a sign of progress in the sense of transgendered rights. Now the Netherlands has fallen drastically behind most other developed countries in the world. It is as if there has been no further research or work in the area of understanding the lives and reasons for transgendered people. There have been leaps and bounds in the understanding of the transgendered mind and what can happen when such a person is put under stress like that which the outdated article could cause. The Dutch would be better to listen to the Human Rights Watch and begin the several times promised revision of the article in the very near future.

Do you see this a fair? Should a transgendered person have to go through a very invasive medical procedure to change their legal gender? Was this article really progressive in its inception? What are your thoughts?

The Irish Travellers and Their History of Discrimination

Recently, it has come to the attention of the United Nations Human Rights Committee that the United Kingdom has set out to evict a large group of Irish Travelers, also known as Gypsies, from their current homes. Does this seem right to you? Gypsies have historically been viewed as swindlers and thieves when truly they are just people who live a more nomadic life. Due to the numerous stereotypes and judgments passed upon them countries, like those within the United Kingdom, have continuously discriminated against and pushed the Irish Travelers into possibly jeopardizing their beliefs and culture.

The Irish Travelers are not taking this sitting down though. There have been protests demanding the UK to stop the evictions and allow the Gypsies to stay. The UN's Anti-Racism Committee has asked the government to stop the evictions as well. The stigma attached to the Gypsy community comes mostly out of racial and cultural differences, which is against the human rights that so many countries have signed on to uphold.

How is it fair to anyone to remove them from their homes, no matter how temporary, for their race? The United Kingdom is supposed to be a leader in the case of Human Rights and anti-racism and yet it is obvious that within in its borders it still very much exists. In the developed world it has been a long time since open racism has been accepted and yet here we see the United Kingdom doing just that and it is not the only violation of anti-racism they have had recently.

The United Kingdom's treatment of the Irish Travelers is not in any sense okay. Just as the British or Welsh or Irish, they are people too and they are deserving of the same respect that any other citizen is. It is appalling to see one of our close allies doing such things to their own people. Though it may not be senseless killing, it is in the sense of the most developed countries a very grave mistake in violation of human rights. Lack of judgement on the basis of one's race is possibly the most basic of those rights that appear on the list. Something that we were proposed to have learned decades ago. It only goes to show that even in the most advanced of places there is improvement that can be implicated.

How would you feel as if you were and Irish Traveler just told you were evicted from your home? Would you take it or would you say something? Should the United Nations get more involved? Or is this strictly and national matter?