21 Years for 83 Murders?
U.S. Soldier or Domestic Terrorist?
Dying to Party
Recent Immigration Law Changes
dilemma over the issue of
immigration law. Illegal immigrants may be guilty of violating
immigration law but not deportation
Still, the practical applications of the pursuit of
violators of criminal immigration law must be considered when putting a plan
into action. Supposed aggressive tendencies of prosecuting Homeland Security
agents and the sympathies of Mexican, Latin and Hispanic voters were all likely
influences on immigration law changes which went into effect last year that
affected ICE operation. These immigration law changes affected the Memorandums
of Agreement as they relate to the Immigration and Naturalization Act.
Concerning tangible changes to the practices of border agents and local law
enforcement as they enforce criminal immigration law, the Obama
administration’s immigration law changes required the prosecution of criminal
immigrants under due process of law, limited actions of deportation to major
offenders of criminal law and shone a spotlight on local police organizations.
These immigration law changes are subject to polarizing
debate that all too often neatly correlates with an individual’s overall
political outlook. The 2009 revisions to the Memorandums of Agreement that
impact the way criminal immigration law is enforced may have been an attempt at
bringing border patrols closer to the middle of the spectrum. Yet opponents of
Obama and this new policy would probably insist that these immigration law
changes are too liberal. By catching and releasing criminal aliens who have
violated the law, some civil liberties may be preserved, but there is a risk
that re-releases may endanger the safety and lives of legal citizens.
Wasted and Angry: State Senator Goes on Rampage
Ex-Soldiers Sentenced to 6,000 Years
Guatemala City—A Guatemalan court, on Tuesday, convicted and sentenced four ex-soldiers to more than 6,000 years (each) in prison for their role in a massacre of 250 people during the nation’s civil war.
The trial is regarded as groundbreaking; not only as a result of the length of punishment, but because it was one of Guatemala’s first against the dictatorship-era’s military regime. Guatemala’s state-run news agency, AGN, described the judgment as an “historic sentence.”
“The sentence we heard today is only the beginning,” said Aura Farfan, director of the Association for Relatives of the Detained-Disappeared.
The four men who stood trial—Reyes Guali, Danie Mendez, Manuel Sun and Carlos Carias, pleaded not guilty for their charges of crimes against humanity. “I have said several times that I am innocent, there is no solid proof,” Carias reiterated to various news outlets before the conviction.
Although adamant regarding their innocence, the four ex-soldiers were convicted for their role in 201 of the 250 killings that occurred during the 1982 massacre at the village of Dos Erres. The United Nations, the general enforcer of human rights, documented a total of 669 massacres in Guatemala, during the country’s 36-year civil war, which ended in 1996.
During the trial, 23 witnesses testified, including former soldiers. Survivors eerily depicted what they witnessed during the savage events. Villagers rehashed about the slayings of their families at the hands of the brutal army. But some justice was restored, when family members of victims bellowed as Judge Patricia Bustamante read the ex-solder’s fate.
Support
Many people support the
idea of premarital cohabitation. In fact, some sociologists and psychologists
see premarital cohabitation as a healthy alternative to marriage
easy to enforce and do not take as much time or money as divorces. In fact, men
are generally more adversely affected financially by divorce than are women.
Many couples see premarital cohabitation, or cohabitation in the absence of
marriage, as a safe and happy alternative to marriage. In fact, many couples
view marriage and divorce as unequal contracts. While women are expected to
take care of more household duties during the marriage, men are expected to
support them in the event of a divorce. In essence, cohabitation agreements can
protect both partners from an unequal distribution of property and assets in
the event of a separation. Also, separation is made much less complicated in
for cohabiting couples than in a divorce because the agreement answers any
questions of ownership.
Cohabitation contracts are a beneficial agreement between partners that chose
to simply live together in the absence of marriage or prior to the marriage. In
addition to protection for property and assets, cohabitation contracts can also
ensure inheritance rights if one partner passes away. For any couple that
chooses to live together in the absence of marriage, cohabitation agreements
can offer protection during the relationship or if the couple separates due to
death or a decision to live separate lives.