Can't spell.
Poor grammar.
Woeful grasp of English.
Uses MySpace.

I am no longer a fan. Now I pity her.

With the recent crackdown on the Tamil Tigers in Canada, and the upsurge in violence in Sri Lanka, and the increased sensitivity to terrorism, MIA was going to come under scrutiny now.

But this is a stupid decision to take and an idiotic thing to happen - MIA is a threat to American national security? Yeah right.

MIA is a threat to American national security? Yeah right.

Word. Particularly galling when juxtaposed against stories like this one, which I finally read over the weekend:

The C.I.A. flew Sudan's national-security director, Salah Abdallah Ghosh, to Washington for a debriefing last year. He shared information that his office had on Islamist militants training in Sudan before 9/11. Yet he is one of a handful of top security men orchestrating Khartoum's crimes in Darfur and deploying intelligence units that have carried out targeted killings since 2003.

If the U.S. government thinks she's a threat, then they should put their money where their visa policy is by letting her in and then having the guts to prosecute her for something. (Of course, I think I would have said the same thing about the distasteful Mr. Modi, but that's a conversation for some other time.)

AK, Tigress...are you SURE she's not a threat to national security? Maybe the immigration clerk was just very particular with spelling, punctuation and grammar. Maybe they had a thing about using too many exclamation marks. Maybe they were doing their best to maintain the integrity of the glorious English language.

Oh wait, this is America. In that case, let her in!

Uses MySpace. I am no longer a fan. Now I pity her.

Uh, they all use Myspace:

Outernational
Falu
Karsh Kale (Asian Underground NYC)
Cheb i Sabbah (Eclectic)
Midival Punditz (Asian Underground Delhi)
Shiva Soundsystem (Asian Underground)
Janaka Selekta (Asian Underground SF)
Asian Dub Foundation (Asian Underground UK)
Audio Dakoos
Sub Swara (Asian Underground NYC)
Dhruva (Asian Underground)
State of Bengal (Asian Underground UK)
Radiohiro (Asian Underground)
Pathaan (Asian Underground UK)
Sonik Gurus (Asian Underground)
Kollektiv (Asian Underground NYC)
Susheela Raman
Navdeep (Asian Underground LA/NYC)
Talvin Singh (Asian Underground UK)
Maneesh the Twister (Asian Underground SF)
Latafat Ali Khan (Ghazals!)
Temple of Sound (dub and chillout w/ some Qawwali vocals)
Jazzy B (Bhangra, Vancouver)
Sukshinder Shinda (Bhangra, UK)
Vijay Iyer (Jazz, NYC)

I tried to read her blog and it gave me a splitting headache.

come on people,

part of her appeal is the myspace-ness and the blog typos and her crazy naivete in being so provocative about those Tamil Tigers when she is really just a harmless little brown girl tryna get some respect in the hip hop world...

except now its backfired on poor MIA and people actually think she's a terrorist. US citizens need to ask their govt what they are doing spending time, finances and human resources on controlling the movements of an independent muso while neglecting real homeland security issues.

my starcrush mos def survives! let's please not knock an earnest brown girl when she's down, not from the people who invented karma...MIA keep on rolling with your crazy comments, hope you get that visa my darlin. til then keep being incredulously surprised by exotic india on your blog. tales of corrupt politicians with gun-wielding hombres are a bit par for the course for the natives, but we forgive ya.

I am glad this individual was denied a visa. There is a long history of ethnic indian folks (and many others) living in the UK and USA (democracies based on rule of law) supporting and talking up the worst kind of mass murderers in India (South Asia) as "freedom fighters".

Historically, the US and UK govts have taken the attitude: you brown people need to improve your country first, we cant be bothered, this is freedom etc. In this respect, i think there have been positive changes since 9/11 and the London bombings.

I am glad this individual was denied a visa. There is a long history of ethnic indian folks (and many others) living in the UK and USA (democracies based on rule of law) supporting and talking up the worst kind of mass murderers in India (South Asia) as "freedom fighters".

Yeah I agree - it is also fantastic how the USA denied a visa to that blood thirsty cannibal Mr Modi. It is good that the USA has woken up to the evil of people of his ideological stripe and I hope that the American government continues to monitor the fund raising activities and support he has amongst his constituency in their country. For too long have genocidalists under the cover of being elected politicians in India carried out their tyranny with support in the diaspora and with complete impunity. This is a very good thing to have happened after 9/11 and I hope the extreme right wing fascists of the Indian diaspora remain under scrutiny and their barbaric fuhrers are continually denied visas to enter the USA.

I am glad this individual was denied a visa. There is a long history of ethnic indian folks (and many others) living in the UK and USA (democracies based on rule of law) supporting and talking up the worst kind of mass murderers in India (South Asia) as "freedom fighters".

What in the name of Galang-a-lang are you taking about?? Would you care to provide us with evidence of "ethnic indian folks" supporting mass murderers in India or should we just assume every hazel-hued human is aiding terror? How is MIA connected to these phantom abettors? What exactly does "talking up" denote?

Historically, the US and UK govts have taken the attitude: you brown people need to improve your country first, we cant be bothered, this is freedom etc.

Exactly, hence the joint Anglo-American invasion of Iraq. Oh, wait...

It's probably not a good idea for a citizen of a Western nation (eg. the UK or the US) to be openly supporting foreign terrorism within (or against) an allied country. Regardless of whether one is talking about Sri Lanka or Israel, for example, the same principle applies.

You can't always have your cake and eat it.

I dunno - usually, in order for me to eat my cake I need to have it first, no?

I was speaking in the context of a person being a citizen of a certain country and acting in ways which conflict with the international political relationships of that country, and then expecting to get away with it.

Also, considering the current US Administration's stance on global terrorism, it is not surprising that someone perceived to openly support (in spirit if not necessarily in action) a terrorist group was subsequently denied entry to the US, even if the person concerned is "just" a singer rather than an active member of a foreign terrorist outfit. It's common sense that this would happen. What did she expect ?

Are those typos, or is it actually a language? What I mean is, wouldn't it be much odder if she spoke in slang all the time, and then wrote her blog in pristine prose?

As for myspace, if it's good enough for Vijay Iyer, it's good enough for me.

It's not just South Asian terrorists that are feeling the heat. People in America forget that for thirty years terorrists killed thousands of people with the blessing by ommision of America and her establishment. The IRA was funded directly by the Irish American community of Boston and New York and their apologists were lauded by the Kennedy's and other politicians who gave them leeway because of the Irish vote and romantic notions of the Irish freedom fighter - all the while as the IRA blew up innocents in London, Belfast, Birmingham, Warrington - including children. Americans have a short memory and tend to forget all this when advising other countries on the terrorists in their midst. After 9/11 the British government made sure this inconsistency did not stand. It took the deaths of people in New York for Americans to understand this - but in Britain people were quite cynical about the new found opposition to terrorism in America, in light of their laissez fair attitude to the IRA for so long.

Uh, they all use Myspace

ew, but that doesn't make it ok.

Imagine-- a desi kid who doesn't medal at spelling?!

MIA is an LTTE-songstress? I don't think things are so simple. Regardless, it's the US' prerogative to decide who they want to let into their borders. The fact you need to get a visa to transit through the US suggests the US don't know what they are doing when it comes to visas anyway.

There is an important substantive difference in the denial of visa to Modi and MIA. MIA is a singer. She is neither materially supporting the LTTE nor is she as far as I know, a member of the LTTE. Modi’s case was entirely different. He was in a position of power/authority during the Gujarat riots. Irrespective of how one feels about Modi’s role in the Gujarat riots, one can surely see the difference between Modi’s case and MIA.

MIA keep on rolling with your crazy comments, hope you get that visa my darlin.
here here!
i'll give her my passport. people say i look like her anyway.
i love her! i'm all for any indian woman stirring things up anyway she can!

i'm all for any indian woman stirring things up anyway she can!

Ummm....she's Sri Lankan.

here here!

one can surely see the difference between Modi’s case and MIA.

At one level, this is unassailably true. The legal bases for denying or granting entry are different in each case. Modi was excluded for committing serious human right violations in Gujarat, while MIA seems to have been excluded in a completely arbitrary fashion for reasons that still remain somewhat of a mystery. (Although surely the *claim* must be that she's giving material support to terrorism. That has to be what's going on here, right? She did have visa trouble last year, as I recall, and had to cancel a number of tour dates -- I think a Google search or Abhi's M.I.A. scrapbook could confirm that.)

And therein lies the connection between the two, for there is something deeply flawed about using visa/admission policy to advance these other goals when we do so on the cheap and half-assed. MIA gets excluded without any full and fair adjudication of what she may or may not have done -- and yet she now will be tarred with the charge of "material support," fairly or unfairly. By contrast, Modi probably *should* be tried for gross human rights violations -- or at minimum, be subject to a civil suit that will allow victims and their family members to hold him accountable. (Had he come into the US, there was a substantial likelihood that he would have been sued under the Alien Tort Statute, which would have been a constructive and useful thing.) And yet, he too is excluded without any full and fair adjudication of what happens, and here the problem is exactly the opposite. On the one hand, excluding him minimizes the gravity of what he did, by essentially allowing the U.S. to conclude that it is "not our problem" or concern -- even though genocide is a crime over which there is universal jurisdiction and an obligation for every state in the world to either prosecute or extradite for prosecution. Exclusion also doesn't create any definitive factual record of what actually happened or really hold him accountable, which are both important elements in making victims whole, and coming to terms with/bringing some sense of closure to what happened. At the same time, he and his sympathizers can now claim to be victims of U.S. unfairness and arbitrariness.

And looking at the full range of examples like MIA, the guy from Sudan, and others (there are quite a few others), there actually is some truth to the notion that the application of these policies is highly arbitrary. I'm not saying that people who do bad things should never be excluded from the US -- but the way we do it is pretty arbitrary. There certainly aren't any clear standards -- whether substantive or procedural -- to guide the government's decision-making, or really much by way of process to ensure that those decisions are made in a sober and fair manner for which U.S. decisionmakers *themselves* may be held accountable.

We (and I) also shouldn't speak too soon -- lots and lots of people have had visa trouble since 9/11 for reasons that turn out to be wholly innocuous (in the sense that there is no serious suspicion involved, just procedural rules that cause the process of getting admission to grind to a halt). For all we know, that may be all that's going on here. There could any number of things going on -- it is, after all, immigration law we're talking about, perhaps second only to the tax code in its ridiculousness.

Has anyone thought that maybe she wasn't allowed into America simply because she forgot to renew her visa in time or something like that?

Has anyone thought that maybe she wasn't allowed into America simply because she forgot to renew her visa in time or something like that?

Yes, that's precisely the kind of thing I was getting at -- we all have been jumping to a lot of conclusions, me included. It could be any number of things, for all we know at this point.

AK writes: >>At the same time, he(Modi) and his sympathizers can now claim to be victims of U.S. unfairness and arbitrariness

Oh! So you've realised that finally! Damn.

M. Nam

At the same time, he(Modi) and his sympathizers can now claim to be victims of U.S. unfairness and arbitrariness

I will add that to the list of grievance that tolerant Hindus of the 20 billion year old civilisation of Vedic Tolerance face alongside our perpetual rape by Abrahamics in general.

Hail Mogambo!

Oh! So you've realised that finally!

Ummm, I said "claim." I didn't say that he's a legitimate victim in any sense -- in fact, I believe that I said he should be prosecuted for genocide. (And I don't know where you get "finally," since I don't believe that I've ever had the pleasure of discussing this issue with you before.)

AK,
I especially like your idea of Modi being sued under the Alien Tort Statute. Of course we need for him to be physically present in the US to serve process, so if his visa is not denied this time over, it might not be as bad a thing.

Jai:

It's probably not a good idea for a citizen of a Western nation (eg. the UK or the US) to be openly supporting foreign terrorism within (or against) an allied country. Regardless of whether one is talking about Sri Lanka or Israel, for example, the same principle applies.

I hope that in this affirmation, you are taking into consideration the involvement of both the US and the UK governments and its dealings with Israel.

Also, considering the current US Administration's stance on global terrorism, it is not surprising that someone perceived to openly support (in spirit if not necessarily in action) a terrorist group was subsequently denied entry to the US

What is the "US Administration's stance on global terrorism"?
Also, being a "terrorist group" doesn't necessarily bar entry into the US. The US has had a record of hosting unsavory fellows on its soil.

Divine Comedy:

The IRA was funded directly by the Irish American community of Boston and New York and their apologists were lauded by the Kennedy's and other politicians who gave them leeway because of the Irish vote and romantic notions of the Irish freedom fighter - all the while as the IRA blew up innocents in London, Belfast, Birmingham, Warrington - including children.

While I agree with you, I also think it is important to point out that the UK government also terrorized people in Ireland. This is not to justify the IRA's actions, but I don't think it is correct to leave out government actions.

If we are to speak of "terrorism"-- keep in mind that there is no consensus on the definition of the term "terrorism"-- I think we should also include state terrorism, ie that practiced by states.

While I agree with you, I also think it is important to point out that the UK government also terrorized people in Ireland. This is not to justify the IRA's actions, but I don't think it is correct to leave out government actions.

Right OK, super, thanks for the context, but still, Irish Americans, tolerated by the US government, and supported by Democrats like Ted Kennedy, sent millions of dollars into the coffers of the IRA which went to buying explosives and guns which were used to kill children, men and women in their thousands. The British government over the 30 years of the Troubles did not systematically 'terrorise' in the way that the IRA supported by their American Irish ringmasters killed. Simple fact. The USA was a safe house for Irish Republican terrorists for a long long time.

If we are to speak of "terrorism"-- keep in mind that there is no consensus on the definition of the term "terrorism"-- I think we should also include state terrorism, ie that practiced by states.

1.Sorry, I wasn't specific in the above statement. To clarify the above statement, there is no international consensus on the definition of "terrorism", both in international law and in the UN. Furthermore, every government uses the term "terrorism" as it is convenient for them.

2. State terrorism is NOT comparable to individual and/or group terrorists.

Divine Comedy:

The USA was a safe house for Irish Republican terrorists for a long long time.

I am not disputing this fact.

The British government over the 30 years of the Troubles did not systematically 'terrorise' in the way that the IRA supported by their American Irish ringmasters killed. Simple fact.

You are entitled to your opinion.

CAD,

I hope that in this affirmation, you are taking into consideration the involvement of both the US and the UK governments and its dealings with Israel.

I am not referring to governments and, although I understand your point, that is a entirely separate argument. I am referring to (for example) British-based citizens who espouse, glorify, and support acts of terrorism within/against foreign states which are "friendly" to the UK. As you are no doubt aware, the UK currently has some problems with certain members of the British population who support Islamist terrorism. Rightly or wrongly, it would be both misguided and, perhaps, naive to expect there to be no consequences of proclaiming vocal support for such groups.

The same principle applies to American citizens too, of course, along with the issues inherent in domestic individuals supporting foreign terrorist groups based on religion, ethnicity, nationalistic concepts, and so on.

What is the "US Administration's stance on global terrorism"?

I believe you already know the answer to that, vis-a-vis the current "War on Terror" etc.

Also, being a "terrorist group" doesn't necessarily bar entry into the US. The US has had a record of hosting unsavory fellows on its soil.

The US is not a monarchy and, therefore, the agendas and positions of the individuals & groups at the executive levels changes with time according to the person occupying the Oval Office along with the political parties in control of the other branches of government. It's incorrect to ascribe political policies from decades past to any individuals or groups currently in power, as the latter may not necessarily agree with the former. Times change, depending whoever is "at the top".

CAD,

While I agree with you, I also think it is important to point out that the UK government also terrorized people in Ireland.

Excuse me, "the" UK government ? The administration currently in 10 Downing Street ? The same people, and the same Prime Minister ?

Governments change with time. That's the whole basis of democracy ;)

Cheap Ass Desi

It is not an opinion - it is a fact. The IRA were responsible for the deaths of almost 2000 innocent people in the thirty years before the ceasefire. Loyalist paramilitaries had a similar death toll. The British government DID NOT place bombs in dustbins blowing up nine year old children in Warrington, they did not place bombs in pubs in Birmingham and Guildford slaughtering dozens of innocents enjoying a drink, they did not shoot dead a six month old baby who happened to be being held by his father who was an off duty soldier. They did not place bombs in the high street of Omagh slaughtering thirty Saturday afternoon shoppers. The IRA did all of this. It is a simple fact - the British government did not terrorise like the Irish Republican Army did, no matter how you wish to deny that out of an instinct to relativise the violence perpetrated by ideological fascists and terrorists.

This was why in Britain there were sneers of cynicism when all of a sudden after 9/11 Americans started telling people to give up their terrorists - when America had been turning a blind eye to terrorist support and funding from the Irish American community in Boston and New York.

It is dismaying to me that none of the commentators are willing to recognize the LTTE as a pol-potist and hyperviolent regime. Based on the comments so far, it appears that publicly celebrating suicide bombing in music or appropriating LTTE symbols is viewed as sort of the same as supporting Howard Stern or some other freaky but harmless group.

I am no fan of GWB, I am glad that Modi got a kick on his behind instead of a visa, but shouldnt musicians who advertise being linked to extremist groups be challenged about their affiliations?

Nagarjuna,

It is dismaying to me that none of the commentators are willing to recognize the LTTE as a pol-potist and hyperviolent regime

Several people on this thread have been doing exactly this, indirectly if not necessarily directly, as this thread is about MIA's support for the terrorist group and not about the group itself.

shouldnt musicians who advertise being linked to extremist groups be challenged about their affiliations?

Yes, absolutely.

No big deal here. If MIA gets flagged for voicing her opinions of an organization that has met the general criteria for a 'terrorist' group, too bad. SHE has to live with the consequences of promoting such philosophy.

It's totally cool when a girl, who has some cheeky music, dances around and gets everybody all excited. She should get a pass, totally. So exotic.

It is our country. Getting a visa isn't some fundamental human right or requirement. If she had the balls and conviction, she'd say,"Well, screw you, I'll keep preaching away with my music, I don't need the United States."

But she wants the money, fame, fortune, and promotion. Timberland is waiting for her.

I sleep so much better at night knowing they foiled the plot to threaten America with music from the ’70s. Playing ‘Where’s Osama?’ pales in comparison.

Although I believe the Cat Stevens move was pretty stupid(since from what I've read, he's an ardent pacifist), IF MIA got denied on the basis for supporting/promoting LTTE philosophy, it would alteast be consistent. If some potential terrorists have been denied visas, how will you know that? What are the reject rates of 'deserving' vs. 'undeserving' candidates? Denying a visa (rightly or wrongly) has nothing to do with forces looking for Osama. Even if we had captured and killed Osama or other terrorists on foreign soil, the dynamic/mechanism involved in attacking [the terrorist] on foreign soil vs. denying them entry is different. The state dept and military are the right and left hands of US foreign policy. Say, when all facts are out and about, the State dept is denying a whole host of alleged terrorists entry while barring some'deserving' candidates. Now, if the left hand (Decisions as Commander in Chief) is missing the hook after the right cross has landed (denying terrorists and some other folk caught in the dragnet entry), it is a problem.

Considering the 9-11 guys got here legally, their over cautious effort doesn't give me heartburn. Not having caught Osama is a valid and strong argument in itself.

The Indian scientist denied a visa was stupid (which the state dept officially anted up to.) Cat Stevens/ Yusuf Islam denied a visa was stupid. These examples show the govt is more on a default 'reject' mode. I will sleep better since the bad guys aren't getting in. It does annoy me that mistakes like these give us bad press for not doing enough homework. MIA being denied a visa is not illogical, maybe extreme, but not illogical.

I'm interested in what general reactions would be if you'd replace MIA with a muslim woman supporting Islamic fascists (say Hamas) 'lyrically'?

Especially now that the whole nightmare cycle of violence in Sri Lanka looks like it might be starting up again, which will see more innocents dying, it is especially important that she is challenged on her views on the LTTE.

I'm interested in what general reactions would be if you'd replace MIA with a muslim woman supporting Islamic fascists (say Hamas) 'lyrically'?

My point exactly. A singer may not necessarily be actively involved in financing, planning, or executing terrorist acts, but as a "cheerleader" for the terrorist group, he or she can't seriously expect there to be no legal or political consequences. Especially in the current global climate.

SHE has to live with the consequences of promoting such philosophy.

I'm interested in what general reactions would be if you'd replace MIA with a muslim woman supporting Islamic fascists (say Hamas) 'lyrically'?

A singer may not necessarily be actively involved in financing, planning, or executing terrorist acts, but as a "cheerleader" for the terrorist group, he or she can't seriously expect there to be no legal or political consequences.

Wait a minute, legal consequences for "cheerleading," for mere speech and opinion? Last time I checked that's protected. If she's buying guns for them that's different, but then let's please have some evidence. Don't like what she's saying in her songs? Then write your own songs in opposition to her. Or become a music critic. ;)

legal consequences for "cheerleading," for mere speech and opinion? Last time I checked that's protected.

I'm a British citizen so I'm afraid someone here will have to clarify this for me -- Glorification of terrorism isn't an offence in the United States ?

nagarjuna, Khmer Rouge killed upwards of 1 million Cambodians. If you think they are in anyway similar to the LTTE, you are a dumbass.

Divine Comedy, you may think the UK weren't all too bad in the way they dealt with Ireland, but I suspect there are plenty of people that would disagree with you.

I still don't buy this argument that MIA is promoting violence in Sri Lanka.

it is especially important that she is challenged on her views on the LTTE.

It's also especially important that people who assign views to others be challenged for it. She uses the imagery, she uses the terms but so what? Does that use constitute support? Like i've said before on here, maybe she's just using the elements that played a significant role in her upbringing. If the reasoning for denying the VISA is that the US finds terrorist imagery unappetizing, then fine, that's a valid objection. If it's based on the notion that she supports the tigers then that needs to be challenged. She herself says she's neutral regarding the conflict.

Glorification of terrorism isn't an offence in the United States ?

Expand that to: "Glorification and support of terrorism....."

Is the LTTE recognised by the US as an outlawed terrorist group ?

If the answer to either of these questions is "Yes", then surely that further validates MIA running into legal problems with regards to entry to the US ?

I'm a British citizen so I'm afraid someone here will have to clarify this for me -- Glorification of terrorism isn't an offence in the United States ?

Where exactly does she say, "go blow yourself up, terrorism is great." I don't think I've heard her in an interview, or in her music, come out explicitly in favour of the LTTE. She uses LTTE imagery in her music and art work. Is this a glorification of terrorism? I somehow doubt it.

On preview: what Ananthan said.

Wait a minute, legal consequences for "cheerleading," for mere speech and opinion? Last time I checked that's protected.

Cheerleading is protected, not the consequences of it (social, legal, personal, etc.) Also, she isn't a United States citizen. Legally speaking, BIG DIFFERENCE.

MIA hasn't been persecuted or thrown in jail for her opinion. Maya can still sing, dance, and an do her weird thing until she drops. Just not on US soil. Equating being denied a visa in her case and some type of 'injustice' or persecution is not valid.

Don't like what she's saying in her songs? Then write your own songs in opposition to her.

I'd be as bad as her :), as for a music critic, I'll wRigHT SoME naSTY rEviEW on HeR MYSPACE!!!! ROTFLOL!!!

Ananthan

Surely you are not suggesting that there is anything unreasonable in suggesting that she be challenged on the LTTE given that her iconography and music plays with the tropes of the organisation? Especially in the light of the tension and break down in the ceasefire in Sri Lanka at the moment? That is all I say - she should be challenged on this. She cannot expect that gangsta rap chic and people's innocent thrill at her whole image gives her a free pass?

AK

Wait a minute, legal consequences for "cheerleading," for mere speech and opinion? Last time I checked that's protected. If she's buying guns for them that's different, but then let's please have some evidence. Don't like what she's saying in her songs? Then write your own songs in opposition to her. Or become a music critic. ;)

This is all fine, except that is only applicable to persons in the US soil. It is the US Govt prerogative in denying a visa.

You guys were all gungho when Modi was denied a visa. Hope the US govt applies the same logic to Sonia Gandhi and the rest of the Congress govt (The 1984 pogrom in Delhi and teh rest of India was the worst and you know who was responsible). Atleast be consistent.

Divine Comedy, you may think the UK weren't all too bad in the way they dealt with Ireland, but I suspect there are plenty of people that would disagree with you.

I know the faults of the British government in Ireland. I also know that the IRA were a murderous and fascistic terrorist outfit. The British government did not carry out mass slaughter like the IRA did. Simple fact that irks those who lust and glamourise terrorists.

She herself says she's neutral regarding the conflict.

I call bullshit. Maybe she just finds the LTTE fashionable and cool, like totally rebellious and stuff. Like all the kids sporting CHE T-Shirts.

It all depends on what you mean by "support." Typically, mere speech in "support" of a group's goals, aspirations, and even activities is not sufficient to warrant punishment. The immigration context is different, in that the government has tremendous discretion to act in ways that would otherwise be deemed arbitrary. But at least at the level of principle, punishing someone for speech and association only raises all kinds of human rights concerns. For the nerdy among you with some time on your hands, see David Cole's summary of some of the issues (in a related but different context).

US Govt prerogative in denying a visa.

You guys were all gungho when Modi was denied a visa. Hope the US govt applies the same logic to Sonia Gandhi and the rest of the Congress govt (The 1984 pogrom in Delhi and teh rest of India was the worst and you know who was responsible). Atleast be consistent.

Which leads me back to the point that this "prerogative" is (or perhaps is, since we don't yet know the facts) being exercised arbitrarily. Just because there is formal legal authority to do something doesn't mean that however it is exercised is therefore just.

I won't speak for others, but I wasn't "gung ho" about Modi's exclusion at the time, though I wasn't shedding any tears for him either. I want the guy to be prosecuted or otherwise held accountable, and here would have been as good a place as any other. As for Sonia Gandhi, I think the suggestion that her role in 1984 was equivalent to Modi's is a bit ridiculous. Others in the Congress Party, absolutely -- but what's your evidence about her role?

But at least at the level of principle, punishing someone for speech and association only raises all kinds of human rights concerns.

Wasn't that the argument used by the British to allow hardcore islamists entry/residency in the UK (some of whom have 'floated' over to active support vs. simply spouting philosophy?)

The US should show that free speech does have consequences. No one will stop you from saying what you will, but that does not mean you can simply get away from spewing crap while shedding away personal responsibily under the guise of free speech.

In my opinion, foreign policy gets too entreched in dogmatic theories without any flexibility. It is tricky. There will never be a one size fits all.

I call bullshit. Maybe she just finds the LTTE fashionable and cool, like totally rebellious and stuff.

What songs of hers do you think are pro-LTTE? What interviews have you read where she comes out in favour of the LTTE and violent struggle in Sri Lanka.

right on, gujudude. she takes this wishy-washy stance on a serious politcal situation. if she doesn't have a strong stance on it, i wonder why she even feels compelled to address it at all. frankly, she seems very uninformed. i could kind of understand, the first time around; when she first came out, her reflecting on her own personal experience. but now, you'd think she'd know a little more about the situation, outside her own family's perspective. since people have called her out on it, so she should know better. she was getting better about it, but she still uses the ltte and sri lanka as an "exotic" commodities to sell her music.

she doesn't go around saying "i'm pro-LTTE!" but the fact that she incorporates it into her artwork, her music (references to suicide bombers, etc), her album title; makes it a part of her image. no, she doesn't say in her lyrics, "i support suicide bombing!" but she does reference it, and not in a negative way. maybe that's not enough for some to constitute "glorification," but if you are someone that has been effected by the conflict in sri lanka, you don't take those references so lightly.

Cheerleading is protected, not the consequences of it (social, legal, personal, etc.)

Er, that would mean that it isn't protected. And simply saying that she "isn't a U.S. citizen" doesn't by itself justify (1) treating her differently from US citizens, or (2) treating her differently from other non-U.S. citizens. I think you need to make more of an argument in favor of your position. In what sense is her speech even demonstrably harmful, except perhaps in emboldening certain people who can't dance to think that they can? (For that, maybe we should be deporting Eminem and many others.)

but that does not mean you can simply get away from spewing crap while shedding away personal responsibily under the guise of free speech

You sure you want the "spewing crap etc" standard to be your touchstone? on that basis, we should probably be shutting down Fox News and maybe going after half the White House staff.

What songs of hers do you think are pro-LTTE? What interviews have you read where she comes out in favour of the LTTE and violent struggle in Sri Lanka.

It isn't about one particular quote or line as it is about her overall presentation [ The collection of all the tid bits, by in themselves don't say much, but put it together and there seems to be a pattern.]

Thats my opinion, everybody else's miles may vary.

I won't speak for others, but I wasn't "gung ho" about Modi's exclusion at the time, though I wasn't shedding any tears for him either. I want the guy to be prosecuted or otherwise held accountable, and here would have been as good a place as any other. As for Sonia Gandhi, I think the suggestion that her role in 1984 was equivalent to Modi's is a bit ridiculous. Others in the Congress Party, absolutely -- but what's your evidence about her role?

AK, thanks for keeping it real. I too, was not "gung ho" about Modi's exclusion precisely because of this reason. You make your bed and then you lie in it. Or rather, other people make your bed and put bed bugs in it, and then you complain about the bites.

Relying on the immigration policies of the United States government (particularly ideological exclusion) to accomplish social justice goals--particularly at a time like this--is a terrible idea. I won't even get into Emma Goldman or Marcus Garvey right now.

And as for artists affected by the immigration system:

You can add to the list: Slick Rick--was getting deported; Thea Som--was also getting deported; a couple of bands from Cuba and Indonesia, respectively --visa problems; and everyone listed in this google search.

As for Sonia Gandhi, I think the suggestion that her role in 1984 was equivalent to Modi's is a bit ridiculous. Others in the Congress Party, absolutely -- but what's your evidence about her role?

Well, she may have not participated directly as it was her husband who was involved and she was not part of the power structure then. But she was definitely part of the coverup and the whitewash that is going on now. And a few more years from now all the evidence and witnesses (whatever exists after so many years) will be be gone and you (not you as AK but in a generic jolwallahs) will be asking to show evidence that the things that happened in 1984 really happened. That is why I said be consistent. The blood on the hands of the opposition to Modi is worse. I am not making excuses or saying two wrongs make it right. Actually two wrongs are two wrongs and should be dealt with the same gusto.

AK, thanks for keeping it real. I too, was not "gung ho" about Modi's exclusion precisely because of this reason.

I was very gung ho on getting Modi's visa rejected and I am going to be even more hung go to get it rejected yet again if he does try come to come over (some newsreports say hes trying to come over)

I expect the government to judiciously use its visa denying ability. Thousands of visas are refused everyday by US consulates across the world for unexplained reasons. I am not sure if denying a visa to Modi had any bearing whatsoever on the visa being denied to Cat Stevens or anybody else. I understand the part about setting a bad 'precedent', but we didnt set the precedence when Modi's visa was denied. The precedent has been firmly in place for decades and frankly I dont see any practical solutions to this problem. The State Department logistically cannot provide a review process to the hundreds of thousands of denied visa appliers.
So the State Department will continue (as it has been for decades) to deny a very small fraction of visas on ideological grounds. I see no reason why we should take the moral high ground when its clear that our stance will have no bearing whatsoever on future denial of visas on ideological grounds by the State Department.

Cheerleading is protected, not the consequences of it (social, legal, personal, etc.) Also, she isn't a United States citizen. Legally speaking, BIG DIFFERENCE.

The standards of legal culpability are for the most part, same for both citizens and non-citizens. Of course, aliens face immigrations consequences which are not faced by citizens.

Well, she may have not participated directly as it was her husband who was involved and she was not part of the power structure then. But she was definitely part of the coverup and the whitewash that is going on now. And a few more years from now all the evidence and witnesses (whatever exists after so many years) will be be gone and you (not you as AK but in a generic jolwallahs) will be asking to show evidence that the things that happened in 1984 really happened. That is why I said be consistent. The blood on the hands of the opposition to Modi is worse. I am not making excuses or saying two wrongs make it right. Actually two wrongs are two wrongs and should be dealt with the same gusto.

But see, here's the thing. Two things, actually. (1) Immigration exclusion will never, even under the most enlightened administration, give any of us an opportunity to develop what the facts actually are in the way that prosecution or even a truth commission would. You might be right about Sonia Gandhi, or I might be (though I don't purport to know every last detail without further research). Either way, there's no way that US immigration policy is the right way to go about determining those kinds of facts and holding wrongdoers accountable, and yet so many of us talk about these issues as if it is legitimately or effectively a "stand in" for that kind of process. (2) Consistency in the use of immigration exclusion for these kinds of goals will inevitably be elusive -- again, probably even under the most enlightened administration, but certainly in the hands of those inclined to use that power arbitrarily. It just won't happen, certainly not without clear standards and a different kind of process.

So I think I'm being entirely consistent -- let both of them in, and then let MIA perform on Summerstage w/DJ Rekha and indict Modi for genocide.

(Now, why you think opponents to Modi have "blood on their hands" in a "worse" way -- worse than whom? -- not sure I understand that one.)

AMfd, I think that allowing Modi in would have spurred a number of really healthy political processes that were interrupted by denying him entry. There was the ATS suit, as I mentioned, which probably would likely have been filed and served had he come here. But also would have been the power of protesters tailing him at every appearance, there also was a political process within the community, amongst pro- and anti-Modi Indian Americans, that would have been healthy, since it would have caused people to really think about, confront, and deal with our own transnational roles in what happens in the subcontinent. That long distance nationalism is an important part of what's been going on for the last several years (and longer).

And I don't think we got very much in return for sacrificing those processes. Perhaps we did deprive him of the possibility of shopping at Bloomingdale's, but he appeared at the AAHOA conference anyway, by video linkup, and got to wrap himself in the martyrdom of claiming (emphasis added, this time, so there's no confusion) to be a victim of the U.S.

On balance? I think I would have let Bloomie's take his money.

Of course, aliens face immigrations consequences which are not faced by citizens.

Having practiced immigration law a bit, I certainly know this all too well. But the question remains whether that different treatment is justified in any given context.

(Now, why you think opponents to Modi have "blood on their hands" in a "worse" way -- worse than whom? -- not sure I understand that one.)

I guess you have never lived in India and/or your source of info is only NY Times, WP etc and any other Indian sources of recent vintage. Go and look at the last 40-50 years of Indian politics and governing and you will know what I am speaking of.

There was the ATS suit, as I mentioned, which probably would likely have been filed and served had he come here.

Be careful playing with fire. This impugns on the rights of a soverign nation. Whatever said and done, it is only the duly elected Govt of India who have the right to indict or prosecute Modi. India to kindly remind you, is not a Banana republic. If the US court would have taken it up, it would have diplomatic consequences. Maybe, the US State Dept was afraid of this and decided that it was best to not give Modi a visa, because they can't control the left wing loonies, but couched it in a different language. Who knows.

Er, that would mean that it isn't protected. And simply saying that she "isn't a U.S. citizen" doesn't by itself justify (1) treating her differently from US citizens, or (2) treating her differently from other non-U.S. citizens. I think you need to make more of an argument in favor of your position. In what sense is her speech even demonstrably harmful, except perhaps in emboldening certain people who can't dance to think that they can? (For that, maybe we should be deporting Eminem and many others.)

Let me clarify: By legal I was not implying she has commited a crime. The statement was more general and it encompasses not only something criminal, but a civil beef, too (hypothetically a Sri Lankan group against the LTTE that may sue regardless of the case's merit. The consequence of such an action would be to spend money to defend herself.) My general point was that people believe free speech entitles them to protection against whatever the consequence of said free speech may be. I should have been more clear and simply state those consequences for said free speech can range the full spectrum, depending on the content of it. People asking her about stuff that alludes to support for the LTTE and wanting clarification is a part of that. The ambiguity of her responses are also a part of this issue, especially when it comes to immigration where it may get highlighted.

All of this would be moot if this whole issue boils down to something procedural.

By her not being a US citizen, she is a guest when in the United States. If she makes it here, she is entitled to say whatever she wishes. Not being a citizen doesn't imply she does not have the same free speech rights. My primary issue is with the fact that people have taken a tone that she almost has a right to be here. No she doesn't. In her case, if the government feels they don't want to let someone in who they believe glorifies an outfit such as the LTTE, I don't have any heartburn.

Another administration may make a different choice. She is just an artist who has an unsavory connection at best and actively supports a terrorist group at worst. Not allowing her on US soil is the administration's decision and I have no problem with them exercising it.

No argument on the dancing thing. Jesus, it really is bad.

You sure you want the "spewing crap etc" standard to be your touchstone? on that basis, we should probably be shutting down Fox News and maybe going after half the White House staff.

Fine, I'll use 'splurging feces' standard as my touchstone. If that was really the case not only would Fox News shut down, but I'd bring the axe down on all network television, all cable news networks, most of hollywood, send Keven Federline to some secret prison where he can stop impregnating women along with singing PoPozao, and loop only the disovery channel, history channel, scifi channel, PBS, HBO, WGN games of the Chicago Cubs (I know, this year is the year and they suck), games of the Chicago Bears.... [JUST KIDDING]

The standards of legal culpability are for the most part, same for both citizens and non-citizens. Of course, aliens face immigrations consequences which are not faced by citizens.

You are correct.

Having practiced immigration law a bit, I certainly know this all too well. But the question remains whether that different treatment is justified in any given context.

The answer is it depends (on her true stance), and thats why we're all having this discussion. Right?

I see no reason why we should take the moral high ground when its clear that our stance will have no bearing whatsoever on future denial of visas on ideological grounds by the State Department.

I agree with you that there's a long and sordid history of the immigration system being used to eliminate ideological oppoonents (and on other grounds, including religion, HIV status, political affiliation, "idiocy", etc.). I don't see what the cost-benefit is that justifies perpetuating that here.

There are a million and one other tactics one can use to call attention to how reprehensible the actions of Modi (and the people who are raising money for him and his ilk) can be. Why choose one that will give moral credibility to the U.S. government's ability to deny visas and deport people and exclude people willfully on the basis of whatever it wants with little to no accountability?

If Modi had entered the United States, there was planned a large protest at Madison Square Garden that would have prompted more dialogue and brought more attention to the fact that many, many NRIs are raising money for Hindutva. Instead, you have a visa denial and a victory for the Bush Administration's "we care about democracy" pr machine.

Hindutvavadi --

This impugns on the rights of a soverign nation.

Actually, I don't think it does. The suit would not have been by the US government but by private parties harmed by Modi. In any event, sovereignty is a constrained concept in this era, and genocide is a crime for which there is universal jurisdiction, and every country in the world has an obligation to prosecute or extradite the genocidaires.

I guess you have never lived in India and/or your source of info is only NY Times, WP etc and any other Indian sources of recent vintage. Go and look at the last 40-50 years of Indian politics and governing and you will know what I am speaking of.

Whoa, no need to resort to ad hominems, especially since you know almost nothing about me. All I asked was you to clarify what you meant, since it wasn't self-evidently clear -- or self-evidently justified. (You seem to think that you can just assert conclusions that justify themselves, and that is sufficient, rather than actually engaging in reasoned argument to back up your assertions.)

Gujudude --

My general point was that people believe free speech entitles them to protection against whatever the consequence of said free speech may be. I should have been more clear and simply state those consequences for said free speech can range the full spectrum, depending on the content of it.

Of course, civil legal consequences can be infringements upon free speech just as much as criminal punishment in many circumstances -- that's why a private plaintiff who is a public figure is required to show "actual malice" to win in a libel lawsuit against a newspaper. Your more general point ("if the government feels they don't want to let someone in who they believe glorifies an outfit such as the LTTE, I don't have any heartburn") gives me heartburn to the extent that it's an invitation to government arbitrariness, rather than evenhandedness and in a reasoned manner, in the enforcement of the immigration laws. Yes, she doesn't have a "right" to enter the United States. But when the government can act arbitrarily in application of the immigration laws, rather than in a reasoned and principled manner, that should be troubling to all of us. If we're going to start enforcing the immigration laws against MIA for material support of the LTTE, then I've got a long list of people that should be held equally culpable but who will probably be able to enter the US without much trouble. At all.

Bottom line for me is that I think there has to be some evidence of overt, concrete action before we start holding people responsible for "support" for terrorism. If she's buying them guns, that's one thing. If they don't like what she has to say -- that doesn't seem justified.

Finally, before I pull a Cheap Ass Desi and disappear for a while, watch it there with talk of shutting down the SciFi Channel. You want to incur the Wrath of Abhi???

The only thing an ATS suit does it to bring attention to the matter - I have not heard a single individual who has been penalised by this legislation since the 1860's (pre-piracy days).

AMFD: >>I was very gung ho on getting Modi's visa rejected

This means that you don't trust the Congress/Communist Partis/Laloo etc as well. Which means you don't trust the whole legal and constitutional machinery in India. Which means you think India is a Banana republic on the lines of Sudan or Hollywood.

See - if the visa was rejected while the BJP was in power at the centre ( thwarting an honest inquiry into the riots being a legitimate accusation), then I would have understood. However, in May 2004, the BJP lost the elections, and the "Secular" forces came to power. I am sure they have tried every rule in the book to bring Modi down - the fact that they have been un-successful goes to show one thing: Modi is innocent. If he were even half as guilty as he is made out to be, the Congress/Communist combine would have eaten him for breakfast.

But the visa was rejected after eight months of Congress rule. Which means that the US State department rejected it for unknown reasons (most likely to curry favor with islamic groups). Modi was a martyr by default.

M. Nam

The fact that they have been un-successful goes to show one thing: Modi is innocent.

Impeccable logic. You say the same thing about Karadzic and Mladic in Serbia? Pinochet until he was finally brought to justice? India doesn't have to be a "banana republic" for its system of justice to fail in a case like this one.

So the State Department will continue (as it has been for decades) to deny a very small fraction of visas on ideological grounds. I see no reason why we should take the moral high ground

Then why in some liberal circles, an outcry over Washington's denial to release Palestenian Aid money, just because Hamas got elected?

Its clear that US administration doesnt care about Democracy, but cares more about hegemony. Thats why "Hamas" getting democratically elected in a free and fair election spurred by Washington under supervision from the world, doesnt mean anything to Washington.

You may ask how is this related to Modi? Well, because Modi was an elected official in a free and fair election of a democratic country. But apparently that doesnt mean anything to the messiahs of democracy.

BTW, my position about PO aid is that, the new government should get the aid and Washington should force Israel to release the tax revenue that belongs to the newly elected PO govt.

You either like Democracy or you dont. Cant have it both ways.

In my last comment I should have said PA, as in Palestenian Authority and not PO.

AK:

Finally, before I pull a Cheap Ass Desi and disappear for a while

Did you think I wasn't going to catch you in here talking behind my back?

Beware: I am everywhere and nowhere.

A gem of wisdom: don't pull out and disappear. Stay and fight.

RC:

Its clear that US administration doesnt care about Democracy, but cares more about hegemony. Thats why "Hamas" getting democratically elected in a free and fair election spurred by Washington under supervision from the world, doesnt mean anything to Washington.

I completely, wholeheartedly agree with you on this one. You captured my feelings perfectly.

CAD -- I thought that might provoke you into saying something! :) I said disappear for "a while" -- too much to do before the day evaporates completely.

Bottom line for me is that I think there has to be some evidence of overt, concrete action before we start holding people responsible for "support" for terrorism. If she's buying them guns, that's one thing. If they don't like what she has to say -- that doesn't seem justified.

Since you are an immigration lawyer, does the government use such a tactic to 'flush' an answer out of someone. For example, say her indecisive answers irk some security fellas, does the government use a visa denial to get an explanation, on record, to ensure if things aren't consistent with the visitor's detailed explanations, action can be initiated against them?

Also, I said I'd put those channels, including the Sci Fi on loop for people to view. Not cancel it, so the almighty powers that be (atleast on this website) will not initiate a campaign against me (atleast not on that particular subject).

This means that you don't trust the Congress/Communist Partis/Laloo etc as well. Which means you don't trust the whole legal and constitutional machinery in India. Which means you think India is a Banana republic on the lines of Sudan or Hollywood.

Well the perpetrators of the Anti-Sikh riots in Delhi were at one time sitting in the Parliament. Then we had Gujarat. The Indian record on dealing with anti-minority violence is not the best. I think India has made tremendous progress in the last decade but is nowhere close to being called a liberal democracy.
I actually dont believe that the BJP is necessarily worse than Congress when it comes to sectarian violence against the minorities. Remember, Delhi (Anti-Sikh riots) and Anti-Muslims riots in Meerut, Bhagalpur and Bombay were all under Congress governments. I have been reading up on the post partition history of Hindu-Muslim violence in India and some of the worse state sanctioned or tolerated atrocities against Muslims have been committed under Congress governments.

I am not suggesting this is a 'Hindu' problem either. Bangladesh has a terrible record of dealing with its Hindu minority population and Indonesia has a terrible record of dealing with its Christian minority population. I see it more as a general '3rd world' problem. As India continues down the path of economic growth and development, hopefully sectarian violence would become a thing of the past.

Since you are an immigration lawyer, does the government use such a tactic to 'flush' an answer out of someone.

In the post 9-11 world, this has become one of the governments favorite tool of dealing with some undesirable Muslim immigrants and in some cases citizens as well.
The government has even used immigration laws to circumvent some constitutional protections.

In the post 9-11 world, this has become one of the governments favorite tool of dealing with some undesirable Muslim immigrants and in some cases citizens as well. The government has even used immigration laws to circumvent some constitutional protections.

Let me be more specific. Do they use this (a disapproval of the visa) to get an answer, then approve the visa once they have a more clear answer on record from the response.

Hindutvavadi --

This impugns on the rights of a soverign nation.

Actually, I don't think it does. The suit would not have been by the US government but by private parties harmed by Modi. In any event, sovereignty is a constrained concept in this era, and genocide is a crime for which there is universal jurisdiction, and every country in the world has an obligation to prosecute or extradite the genocidaires.

Well, I may be a dunce, but anything filed in a US court, under the jusidiction of the US laws that affects the rights of another sovereign nation, by definition tampers on the rights of a sovereign nation.

By whose agreement is "sovereignty is a constrained concept in this era". Last time I looked up, United Nations recognizes sovereignity and most treaties by definition between sovereign nations. There is no universal jurisdiction notwithstanding what you claim. And genocide as generally accepted is not applicable in Modi's case, not withstanding all the claims made by people who want to prosecute Modi for genocide. And again India has ratified the convention of genocide with this caveat "With reference to article IX of the Convention, the Government of India declares that, for the submission of any dispute in terms of this article to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, the consent of all the parties to the dispute is required in each case.". You can google it. So Govt of India by itself will not agree for this case to be submitted to the ICJ which has the sole authority to try genocide, not withstanding the US laws. Nor is India a signatory to the International Criminal court or going to be one in the near future as they have numerous objections to it.

I guess you have never lived in India and/or your source of info is only NY Times, WP etc and any other Indian sources of recent vintage. Go and look at the last 40-50 years of Indian politics and governing and you will know what I am speaking of.

Well I made a comment which has a lot of truth to it and that is why I asked if you had any significant knowledge of Indian polity. The Emergency, the killings in Assam in the 80', the various riots that took place under the Congress govts were all the ones I referred to. Since independence, the Central and the state govts were mostly controlled by Congress, leftists or various shades of the so-called secular parties. If you still can't understand what I meant, sorry. And you think only you make reasoned arguments.

She supports the freaking terrorists in Sri Lanka. Bad News. Keep her out and stop your leftist whining.

im in india right now, hurding cows, theres some minister staying at my hotel, and his body guard has a a.k 47. me and my brother just caught him knockin on peoples doors askin for money. the police body guard that it.

She sounds far too mentally challenged to be a terrorist... though her painful fractured syntax could be construed to be a weapon of mass irritation.

AK:

CAD -- I thought that might provoke you into saying something! :) I said disappear for "a while" -- too much to do before the day evaporates completely

You say that I "disappeared for while", but I haven't: I've been very active on the "Brutha on Brutha" forum-- check it out!

Hmmm.. something tells me this claim of "provoking me into saying something" is actually an excuse you've come up with to cover your behind since I caught you red handed.

Don't think you can fool me.

Hindutvavadi in CA:

Well I made a comment which has a lot of truth to it and that is why I asked if you had any significant knowledge of Indian polity.

Check you out! So all of your comments have truth to them and you have a significant amount of knowledge on Indian politics; and if AK has a different opinion or position, then apparently AK doesn't have "any significant knowledge of Indian polity". A bit of hubris on your part, don't you think? ;)

In Italian, there is a saying: "Ognuno ha la sua sapienza": Transl: "Everybody has his/her own knowledge".

P.S. Your understanding of international law is a bit textbook literal, but I won't get into that. Presently, I'm not an international lawyer working for the Hague, so evidently I don't have "any significant knowledge" of international law.

Well I made a comment which has a lot of truth to it and that is why I asked if you had any significant knowledge of Indian polity. The Emergency, the killings in Assam in the 80', the various riots that took place under the Congress govts were all the ones I referred to. Since independence, the Central and the state govts were mostly controlled by Congress, leftists or various shades of the so-called secular parties. If you still can't understand what I meant, sorry. And you think only you make reasoned arguments.

I actually don't at all think that I'm the only one who makes reasoned arguments. There are plenty of folks in these pages who do. I just didn't think that you did.

In any event, I do have "significant knowledge of Indian polity" and don't excuse or condone any of the abuses that you refer to. But it doesn't logically follow from anyone's condemnation of those abuses that people who oppose Modi therefore have any "blood on their hands," much less that they have more blood on their hands than anyone else. A pox on the houses of all human rights abusers, no matter what their religion or political party. But what Modi and the Parivar have done is exceptionally well-documented, and so they should be held accountable. And contrary to your suggestion, I have spent time in Gujarat talking to people who have worked on documenting what happened and others who have been affected by the violence.

As for the issue of universal jurisdiction, you are simply mistaken about this. The issue is not whether the India has submitted to the jurisdiction of the ICJ or the ICC with respect to genocide, but whether international law permits states to exercise universal jurisdiction to prosecute certain offenses, and for a limited number of very serious offenses -- war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and torture -- I think international law is pretty clear that universal jurisdiction is available. You may regard that as an infringement upon sovereignty, but sovereignty under international law in this era doesn't protect states' right to engage in those offenses or to leave those offenses unpunished. It is not the case that the ICJ "has the sole authority to try genocide" -- to the contrary, states are encouraged to exercise universal jurisdiction and to recognize the "prosecute or extradite" principle. And a number of states have conducted proceedings based on this principle.

The Alien Tort Statute issue is distinct from the issue of universal criminal jurisdiction, since it involves a civil lawsuit rather than a criminal prosecution. But similarly, here we are talking about violations of international law so egregious that they carry no sovereign protection at all -- individuals cannot cl