An official letter will be submitted to the secretary-general of the Security Council requesting that it become a member state of the UN. A committee will then debate the issue and submit a recommendation to the General Assembly within 35 days.

If the United States vetoes its vote, as President Obama committed to in a May 19th speech, Palestine will be prevented from becoming a member.

However, according to some experts, this unilateral action on behalf of the Palestinians is to make a political statement and statehood is not expected.

So why is the Arab League doing it?

Michael Singh, managing director of The Washington Institute and a former senior director for Middle East affairs at the National Security Council, said the move is symbolic.

“The real consequences will be in the diplomatic arena,” Singh said. “It will bring the peace process into a deeper freeze than it is now.”

According to Avi Issacharoff, Middle East correspondent for Haaretz newspaper in Israel, “neither Abbas nor Palestinians think it will bring them a state.”

“But 64 percent of Palestinians polled said they want the letter brought to the UN,” Issacharoff added.

Issacharoff said economic stability is on the minds of Palestinians right now, more so than immediate statehood.

And this unilateral push for statehood not only undermines peace efforts but jeopardizes economic recovery and stability for Palestinians, which is dependent on Israeli cooperation.

(According to the International Monetary Fund, the Palestinian Authority has a deficit that stands at $500 million and rising.)

“The Arab states should recognize the downsides of this unilateral action and be counseling Palestinians to take a more responsible route,” Singh said.

“All the countries supporting this, such as Britain and France, are acting irresponsibly,” Singh said. “They’re pushing Palestinians to go forward but are not the ones who will have to pay the price. The price is going to fall on the Palestinians themselves as well as the Israelis.”

Matt Mainen, a policy analyst at the Institute for Gulf Affairs said Palestinian unilateral action cannot solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and neither can the Obama Administration.

The Institute for Gulf Affairs is an independent, nonpartisan organization that publishes information about the Gulf region, its politics and international relations.

“President Obama sees a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a safe way to make an impact in the Middle East,” Mainen said. “Thus far he has failed, and unilateral Palestinian moves will only further demonstrate the Obama administration’s lack of ability to control either party.”

“We won’t see progress, everything will be moving background,” Singh said.

And while a war may end, casualties continue.

According to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Assistance to Afghanistan, as of 2010, an average of 50 Afghani citizens were killed or severely injured each month due to landmines.

Between 2004 and 2009, this accounted for over 4,000 civilian casualties.

“Mines persist after war is over,” said Andrew Lyons, the U.S. vice president of Halo Trust, the world’s oldest and largest humanitarian land-mine clearance organization.

Afghanistan has one of the highest levels of contamination from landmines and explosive remnants of war. Kabul is the most heavily mined capital in the world.

This contamination is mainly a result of the Soviet invasion in 1979 followed by internal armed conflicts from 1992 to 2001. Most recently, mine-laying has been carried out between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance. Complicating this landscape, various forces have frequently mined the same areas at different times.

And while mine clearance teams have made significant progress, according to Lyons, the U.S.-led insurgency since late 2001 has added considerable quantities of unexploded ordinances.

(This includes bombs, bullets, shells, grenades, land mines and naval mines that failed to explode when they were employed. They still pose threat of detonation decades after used or discarded.)

The US has not used antipersonnel mines since 1991, nor produced them since 1997. However, leftover unexploded ordinances still cause casualties.

“We cleared over half a million landmines from Afghanistan,” Lyons said.

Between 1988 and  2010, HALO Afghanistan destroyed over 736,000 mines, 10 million items of large caliber ammunition and 45.6 million bullets.

But this still leaves over 9 million landmines.

“We go and clear the areas where combat is over and people are trying to move back,” Lyons said. “We’re up in the northern and central parts of Afghanistan and out in the West.”

From 2005 to 2007, Lyons ran Halo’s clearance operations in Afghanistan. He said Halo’s work focuses on clearing minefields from various phases of past conflict rather than in current combat zones.

“We’re not down there clearing unexploded ordinances from the current conflict,” Lyons said. “Having said that, I have no doubt there’s a lot of ordinance being fired at by both sides that fails to explode.

And although it is the U.S. troops currently leaving unexploded ordinances, it is U.S. funding that provides for the mine-clearing.

According to Lyons, “the U.S. government is one of the largest donors to Halo’s operations around the world.”

U.S. donors to Halo include: its Agency for International Development, Department of Agriculture, Department of Defense, and the Department of State.

According to a spokesperson for the U.S. Humanitarian De-mining Research and Development Program, “Humanitarian de-mining, as carried out by Halo Trust, is the vital first step for reconstruction in post-conflict areas.”

“Our donations help accomplish our goal to remove lingering remnants of war, allowing refugees to return to their homes safely.”

“We’re making steady progress in clearing up the land mines and other explosive remnants of war, dating back to 1979 and going through 2001,” Lyons said. “And that’s very heartening.”

But, mine-clearing in Afghanistan has much further to go.

“What’s less heartening,” Lyons add, “is in other parts of the country there’s a current conflict going on that’s going to produce more remnants of war for us to clear up in the future.”

Earlier this week, the Obama Administration received praises from the AJC for announcing new sanctions against Iran.

AJC Executive Director, David Harris, said “U.S. action is an essential reminder that the Iranian regime’s gross and systematic violation of human rights is being closely monitored and will not go unanswered.”

It’s been two years since Iranian’s took to their streets and the struggle for civil liberties and fundamental civil rights persists.

The sanctions were announced earlier this week by the State and Treasury departments against three official security bodies: Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Basij Resistance Force, and Iran’s national police, as well as against the chief of police, Ismail Ahmadi Moghadam.

The three security agencies were added to the list of organizations and individuals sanctioned by the U.S. for their central roles in perpetrating human rights abuses against Iranian citizens.

The sanctions prohibit Americans from engaging in any transactions with those agencies, freezes assets in the U.S., and blocks American visas for anyone in the three organizations.

“[This] welcome action is especially significant, coming on the second anniversary of the fraudulent 2009 national Iranian elections,” said Harris.

“America’s latest sanctions against the despotic Iranian regime are another clear signal of our determination to match policies with principles,” Harris said.  “We hope that like-minded nations around the world will soon enact similar sanctions as those announced today by the U.S.”

In March, 2009, the AJC also testified to Congress in support of the Iranian Sanctions Enabling Act.

In its testimony, AJC told Congress: “If our Administration pursues engagement with Iran, simultaneously intensifying sanctions is critical. Only tough sanctions would prevent Iran’s rulers from seeing our overtures as a sign of weakness and motivate them to be forthcoming in negotiations. Firm goalposts and deadlines also are crucial to prevent Iran’s regime from hiding behind negotiations as it completes its quest for nuclear arms.”

Harris’ blog on Huffington post: “Iran: Truth Hurts”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-harris/iran-the-truth-hurts_b_398688.html

According to the Council on Foreign Relations, this includes an increased use of unmanned drone strikes and “kill/capture missions” on al-Qaeda and Taliban leadership.

While some experts claim victory on such missions- such as the raid that killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, others criticize the strategies as lacking proper legal boundaries, (as  in the targeting of an American jihadist, Anwar al-Awlaki, in Yemen).

Are these targeted killings saving lives?

Are they within legal bounds?

An adjunct Senior Fellow for Law and Foreign Policy on the Council on Foreign Relations, Matthew Waxman, said U.S. policy is within legal bounds, but cautions against over reliance on targeted killings as a counterterrorism tool.

“Lethal force directed against particular individuals outside a combat zone like Afghanistan is legally and strategically appropriate in limited circumstances,” Waxman said.

According to Waxman, “As to strategy, lethal targeting is but one important tool in the counterterrorism arsenal.”

Constitutional lawyer Pardiss Kebriaei questioned the legal basis that U.S. administrations have used to justify killing suspected terrorists. She suggested it’s a violation of constitutional rights of due process.

“It takes more than declaring a global war for U.S. drone strikes in countries as disconnected from the conflict in Afghanistan as Yemen to be lawful,” Kebriaei said.

But, Professor at Georgetown University and Research Director of the Saban Center at Brookings Institution, Daniel Byman, said decapitating terrorist networks is an effective strategy.

“Killing terrorist leaders and key lieutenants not only brings justice to our enemies, but can devastate the group in question,” Byman said. “Killing a leader like bin Laden removes a charismatic yet pragmatic leader–one who succeeded in transforming a small group into a household name and proved time and again he could attract recruits and funding.”

Afghanistan expert Kate Clark said “targeted killings often produce an organizational chaos that unleashes a more radical generation of subordinates.”

“As for the other aim of the strategy,” Clark added, “persuading the Taliban that fighting is futile and they should negotiate, the United States may find it is killing some of the very people who will be needed to make peace.”

But, are those being killed willing to work for peace, do terrorists negotiate?

Last year 1,506 federal surveillance applications were submitted and approved.

Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, court warrants grant the government broad authority to secretly monitor the electronic communications and physical search of persons engaged in espionage or international terrorism against the U.S on behalf of a foreign power.

Between 2009 and 2010, there was a 13 percent increase in government requests for these warrants, according to a report published recently by the Federation of American Scientists.

This increase amounted to 1,506 government applications for electronic surveillance, all of which were approved by the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, according to the report.

Because of such a nearly perfect approval rate, there is debate as to whether the approval is only a formality.

The report cited Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid who said the FISC did not deny even part of any application.

Reid is part of the 11-member court that did deny two of 1,329 applications for domestic-intelligence surveillance in 2009.

While it is curious why those two were denied, it should be questioned why all 1,506 were approved and what the grounds are for the application.

More controversial is the fact that the targets of these FISA warrants may never learn of the surveillance.

Conversely, targets of non-FISA warrants can dispute the warrants and the evidence gathered if it is used to prosecute.

Also according to the report, the FBI issued 24,287 national security letter requests last year on 14,212 people.

National security letters are written demands from the FBI that compel Internet service providers, credit companies, financial institutions and others to hand over confidential records about their customers, such as subscriber information, phone numbers and e-mail addresses, websites visited and more.

And anyone who gets a national security letter is prohibited from telling anyone else.

But, it this news? Has much changed since 2005?

That year, The New York Times exposed “Under the Terror Surveillance Program,” where the government was eavesdropping, without warrants, on the electronic communications of Americans if they were communicating with somebody overseas believed linked to terrorism.

What is the basis for someone overseas being linked to terrorism?

And if monitoring 1,500 individuals can prevent even one terrorist attack down the road, is it worth it?

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and Annual Reports

Bin Laden is dead. But terrorism still exists. Only 26 percent of Americans surveyed said they now feel safer.

And 67 percent said they were seriously concerned about national security.

According to this data, only 38 percent of American sentiment is that the President has made the world more safer.

This is intriguing, considering media coverage shows highly increased patriotism and many Americans running around with American Flags and cheering U.S.A chants.

And in the aftermath of Bin Laden’s death, in addition to only a small percentage feeling safer,  there was only a 10 percent increase in those who now feel the country is headed in the right direction.

Overall, 30 percent think the country is on the right track, and 27 percent think the economy is on the right track.

And the sentiment of this poll is not limited, there is growth in American security concerns across the board:

Supporting these findings is a recent Unisys Security Index, a bi-annual global study.  It showed that American’s national security concerns increased.

According to the Unisys Corporation’s new research, “Americans are significantly more concerned about nearly all aspects of their security compared to six months ago.”

More than 1,000 Americans were surveyed to gauge consumer opinion on four areas of security: financial, national, Internet and personal safety.

“The total U.S. Unisys Security Index score jumped more than 20 percent over the past six months,” according to a press release. “A level of concern that researchers marked as ‘serious.’”

Steve Vinsik, vice president of enterprise security at Unisys, explained: “The increase is due largely to higher concerns related to the war or terrorism. Sixty-seven  percent (of those) surveyed were seriously concerned about national security.”

More results from the poll:

COUNTRY HEADING IN THE RIGHT OR WRONG DIRECTION?
BEFORE:      Right, 20%, Wrong, 65%
AFTER:         Right, 30%, Wrong 55%

ECONOMY HEADING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION?
BEFORE:      Right, 31%, Wrong, 56%
AFTER:         Right, 27%, Wrong 60%

HAS OBAMA DONE HIS JOB WELL ENOUGH TO DESERVE RE-ELECTION?
BEFORE:     Yes, 40%, No, 48%
AFTER:        39%, No, 49%

In the wake of the capture of Osama Bin Laden…

Do you think President Obama is a strong leader overall?

STRONG              55%
WEAK                   44%

Do you think President Obama is a strong leader in the war on terrorism?

STRONG               63%
WEAK                    34%

Do you think President Obama has made the world more safe or less safe, or no impact?

More safe               38%
Less safe                16%
No impact               40%

Does news that U.S. forces have killed Osama bin Laden make you more favorable, to President Obama less favorable, or does it not impact your opinion?

More favorable          26%
Less favorable           3%
No impact                  67%

Do you think President Obama deserves all of the credit, some of the credit, not much of the credit, or none of the credit for this operation?

All of the credit           10%
Some of the credit      59%
Not much of the
credit                           13%
None of the credit       14%

Who has done a better job at prosecuting the war on terror – President Obama or President Bush?

President Obama        31%
President George W.
Bush                            45%

Has news that Osama bin Laden has been killed made you more confident in President Obama’s ability to lead America, less confident in President Obama’s ability to lead America, or does it not impact your opinion?

More confident    30%
Less confident     3%
No impact            65%

Has news that Osama bin Laden has been killed made you more confident in President Obama’s foreign policy, less confident, or does it not impact your opinion?

More confident        27%
Less confident          4%
Does not impact
opinion                     64%

Has news that Osama bin Laden has been killed made you feel safer, less safe, or no impact?

Safer           26%
Les safe      14%
No impact   55%

With Osama bin Laden dead, do you feel more or less support for war in Afghanistan?

More support      30%
Less support       23%
The same           38%

Now that Osama bin Laden is dead, should the U.S. continue to fight the war in Afghanistan or should we now move on and focus on problems at home?

Continue to fight              33%
Move on and focus on
problems at home           57%

Do you think that Americans have had to give up too many freedoms in the war on terror?

Yes       49%
No        47%

Has news that Osama bin Laden has been killed changed the way you will vote in the 2012 presidential election from the way you felt before Sunday night.

Yes       5%
No        92

Taking effect June 1, 2011, this gave a few months for county registrars and county clerks to prepare for handing out civil union licenses.

Yet what are the implications?

To many, this new law simply means civil union for same-sex couples, with rights similar to those in marriage.

However, uncertainty in the full reach of its provisions has many questioning possible ramifications.

It is generally expected that civil unions will create more work for some offices and employees, although the exact change in workload is vague.

According to Chicago Family Law Attorney, known as one of the pioneering women-owned law firms in Chicago, “the new law will present more responsibility to those who decide to enter into a civil union agreement, regardless of whether the couple is of the same or opposite sex.”

“It is important for those couples who are considering a civil union to recognize that this legal commitment not only gives them many of the same legal rights as married people, but it also presents similar legal issues,” said a spokesperson for the Chicago Family Law Attorney, “such as the prospect of a divorce in the event that a couple would like to end their civil union.”

For some organizations, such as the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinous, the legal ramifications are far-reaching and much more constroversial than it appears on the surface.

According to the ACLU, “some of the same forces that wanted to deny lesbian and gay couples any recognition in our state want to twist that law to write discrimination in to this historic measure aimed at fairness.”

Chicago Family Law Attorny described the legistration: “Civil Unions will grant non-married couples the right to see their sick partner in the hospital, control the disposition of their deceased partner’s remains, and make medical decisions for their partner. Civil unions will be available to any couple in a committed relationship involving two individuals who are 18-years-old or older, not married, not currently in a civil union, and not related.”

However, according to the firm, “it will also ensure that religious institutions can define marriage based on their own accord.”

So, here is the controversy: the repercussions that religious institutions will be able to define marriage to their own accord.  And therefore, not be required to bless unions of same-sex couples.

Hasn’t this always been the case?

However, the act does not say anything regarding same-sex parents.

And according to ACLU, this means the law would permit religiously-based adoption agencies acting on behalf of the State of Illinois to discriminate against couples who have entered into a civil union. And as a result, place children at risk of being denied suitable family placement.

Attorney General Lisa Madigan, Governor Pat Quinn and the Department of Children and Family Services intend to study the Civil Union Act as well as the Illinois Human Rights Act and the Illinois Constitution to decide whether this will prohibit agencies from taking sexual orientation into account in foster care and adoption.

In support of giving openly gay parents a foster care license, a spokesperson for DCFS, said, “Social intervention such as adoption laws and practices inevitably reflect their communities. Illinois as a state has grown on this [gay rights] issue as evidenced by [civil union legislation]. Adoption law and practice should reflect the values of the people of Illinois.”

Can money save civil liberties?

To support civil rights work, Chicago’s Council on American-Islamic Relations raised almost $400,000 in contributions.

CAIR’s New York and Chicago chapters hosted hundreds of community and interfaith leaders, public officials and activists, selling out their  annual banquets.

A not-for-profit organization, CAIR said it uses these contributions to fund numerous diverse projects with relevance to the well being of the Muslim-American community and society at large.

When funds are given, donars can specify how they would like it allocated. Choices include: CAIR membership, support of CAIR’S civil rights work, challenges against Islamophobia, support of CAIR’S leadership training programs, support of projects to inform the public about Islam, or Zakat.

On its website, www.cairchicago.org, forms are available to:

• report discrimination- “anti-Muslim hate crime, or an act of discrimination to be reviewed by CAIR-Chicago’s civil rights department.”
• report media bias- “inaccurate, news stories and bigoted media coverage.”

A spokesperson at CAIR said the organization is proud of the diversity of guests who attended the banquet- in terms of ethnicity, age, gender, and profession, and even religion.

It is unclear which religions other than Islam were represented at the banquet.

“We were grateful to see every mosque and every Chicago Muslim organization with significant representation,” Lyndsey Stemm, a CAIR member, said.

Rev. Jesse Jackson, civil rights leader, spoke at the Chicago banquet and paralleled the struggle of Muslim-Americans fighting for equal rights to that of other minority groups throughout U.S. history.

Dr. Tariq Ramadan, a Muslim scholar, offered the keynote address for CAIR’s New York banquet.

According to CAIR’s Chicago Executive Director Ahmed Rehab, “it was another successful event that capped another successful year.”

“We are grateful to God first and foremost, and to our community for its broad and unending support,” Rehab said.

“We have a beautiful, powerful community,” Stemm said.

CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad said, “we are grateful for the tremendous support CAIR continues to receive from the American Muslim community and from all those concerned about the protection of constitutional rights.”

CAIR’s Cleveland chapter, one of 19 nationwide, held a similar banquet featuring a keynote address by Stanford law professor and former head of Amnesty International USA Chip Pitts.

One of its main concerns,according to the ACLU is protecting citizens from what it deems unreasonable government surveillance.

According to an ACLU spokesperson, “too often, government attempts to gather, store, use, and share sensitive private information about us, even where there is no reasonable suspicion that we are breaking any laws.”

The organization seeks limits on government video surveillance cameras, and fusion centers (which collect massive amounts of personal information under one roof).

On April 15, the Surveillance Camera Data Collection Act cleared the Illinois House floor, calling for transparency in the use of government surveillance cameras across Illinois.

The measure passed the Illinois House by a vote of 110 to 0 and will now move on to the Senate.

Yes, this may be protecting civil liberties, but will this impede on maintaining security?

Should civil liberties be protected at the stake of safety and national security?

In this specific case, the bill passed requires police agencies that own or have access to video surveillance cameras to disclose to the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority the number of its cameras, and privacy regulations.

It also requires the authority to post this information on its website.

Yet posting on its website, makes it public. Should anyone be able to view these tapes?

ACLU claims dozens of government agencies across Illinois have installed thousands of video surveillance cameras in recent years, but very little information about these cameras has been released to the public.

However, Mary Mitchell, a Sun-Times columist said “despite the privacy concerns the American Civil Liberties Union has raised over the city’s network of security cameras, we need more of these cameras, everywhere.”

According to a former deputy undersecretary for the Department of Homeland Security, over the past few years, Chicago has developed and deployed the most extensive and integrated system of surveillance cameras in our country.

The ACLU said these cameras have zoom capacity, automatic tracking and facial recognition which invade our privacy.

Does it invade our privacy or offer security?

The ACLU said it is the amount, integration and technological sophistication of these cameras that raise the following civil liberties concerns: “invasion of privacy, chilling of free speech, voyeurism, and discriminatory targeting.”

“The expansion of government surveillance cameras in Illinois raises profound questions about all of our privacy and other civil liberties,” said Adam Schwartz, senior staff counsel at the ACLU of Illinois. “The transparency provided by this bill will begin to answer those questions.”

“I wish there had been a surveillance camera nearby when the gang-bangers tagged my neighbor’s garage,” Mitchell said, “and having a blue-light camera will increase the odds that a hit-and-run driver involved in an accident could be apprehended.”

“Indeed, according to Chicago Police,” Mitchell added, “the cameras have helped the department solve more than 4,500 crimes since 2006.”

But the ACLU wants fewer cameras. The group argues that the city should be putting the millions used for the cameras into hiring more officers.

While Mitchell agrees with the ACLU in principle, she said putting more police officers on the streets isn’t going to solve crime.

Sun-Times articles: “Chicago needs more security cameras.”

<!–

You: an agent of the Council on American Heritage.

Your mission: nab a terrorist—and change the future.]

Can interactive online experiences alter the perceptions and understandings of its users?

Can it break through social, religious, political barriers and foster empathy for civil rights?

Breakthrough, an India and U.S. based human rights organization, recently announced its futuristic Facebook game which depicts a “Divided States of America,” challenging players to virtually change the future.

In “America 2049,” a game spanning 12 weeks, players take on missions and face challenges based on human rights themes including immigration, race, sexual orientation, sex trafficking, religion, labor, and national security.

The goal is for users to explore how the choices and challenges Americans now face will shape the future of the country and its democratic values.

To put a human face on these issues, Hollywood talents such as Lost’s Harold Perrineau; Alias’ Victor Garber; 24’s Cherry Jones and Rent’s Anthony Rapp are actors in “America 2049.”

“As the game unfolds, players make high-stakes decisions,” said a Breakthrough spokesperson,  “they are immersed in a divided America of the near future, splintered by race and ethnicity, hostile to women, sexuality, and self-expression.”

The multimedia platform of this game utilizes both online and offline resources. Clues to solving the game are planted across the internet and in real-life events at leading cultural institutions nationwide.

Chicago’s Hull House Museum is a participating resource for players.

Lisa Junkin, education coordinator at Chicago’s Hull House said the museum is excited to partner with Breakthough.

According to Junkin, one of the museum’s events this week is tied directly to the game- as some of the Hull Houses’ artifacts are involved in “America 2040.”

However, as to which event holds the clues is a secret–players must figure it out on their own.

Junkin said the gaming world’s crowd is different than the museum’s crowd and it’s important to intertwine the two audiences and open dialogue.

“There’s been a lot of talk about gaming changing the world,” Junkin said, “it offers a real chance at understanding.”

Dr. Ronit Kampf, a political communications expert from Hebrew University of Jerusalem, said interactive gaming does have the potential to change perceptions, through fostering understanding and awareness.

She said the use of interactive media has been employed for some time now in Israel, to help youth deal with the Israeli-Palestinian situation and to bridge gaps between young people living in the Middle East.

The Peres Center for Peace in Israel released “Peace Maker,” a similar interactive game, last year.

According to Kampf, online experiences help its participants develop a more complex perspective toward social and political issues.

“‘America 2049’ is literally a game-changer,” said Breakthrough President & CEO Mallika Dutt in a press release.

According to Dutt, “it parachutes us into an alternate reality perhaps not so far from our own, where we find America poised at a crossroads. The game experience allows us to immerse ourselves in a future that could be — but also inspires us to envision, and recommit to, a real America built on pluralism, democracy, dignity, equality and human rights for all.”

The game’s trailer can be viewed here:http://tinyurl.com/3tp3f3e