FYI: Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act is up for debate

Why should everyone mark the date of June 1st, 2015 on their calendars? The provisions of Sections 206, 215, and 6001, of the USA PATRIOT Act are set to expire on June 1st. That also means that the Senate and House of Representatives will be voting on its renewal which would last until 2020. The most controversial of the three that the American people should definitely inform themselves of before June 1st, is Section 215. The big debate with Section 215, is that it authorizes the National Security Agency to carry out unwarranted government surveillance on those suspected of conspiring against the American people. It is also known as the "library records" provision because it allows a wide range of personal material to be investigated. 

But how can we be assured that the government is properly determining whether a person is involved in conducting actions against the United States and its civilians? Recent scandals such as the Edward Snowden case in 2013, revealed that the NSA has abused its capabilities under Section 215 in order to gain intelligence. 

In reality, the policy was drafted and then implemented in less than 2 months. It was meant to address the issue of the September 11th terrorist attacks in 2001. But how long do we need to be combatting terrorism in the United States on such an extreme level? Many argue that the issues present over 10 years ago, are not at the same level of relevance in today's American society. 

The questions we must ask ourselves before June 1st are:

1. What elements of Section 215 are truly necessary to protect the American people? 
2. Has its implementation carried out more positive or negative change? 
3. What kind of outcome does Section 215 hold in future American politics?

http://www.olcu.org/PDFs/USPatriotAct_Summary.pdf

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/04/22/gop-pushes-patriot-act-renewal-critics-demand-end-mass-surveillance-provision

http://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/patriot/

Baltimore Riot

This riot happened today, the same day as Gray's funeral. Gray was the 25 years old African American who was arrested on April 12, then died a weak later from a spinal cord injury. Most of the protesters were young people of color from middle school and high school, that were seeking for a fair justice. For now we know that the police officers who did this (beat Gray to his death) they are on probation until further investigation. But the protesters see this as injustice progress, and claim that the Gray's family does not deserve this result. Billy Murphy a family attorney said "I am sure that the family is concerned, and I am positive that they are against what is beginning to develop here in town". Do you think this situation need a further investigation or it is a clear case?

Will the next President please stand up?

Time now, of course, for presidential politics in New Hampshire! Hilary Clinton was just in the State, as well as all the other Republican candidates. 2016 is going to involve quite the show, all the campaign ads a side. But this is certainly no game! Certain candidates would love to see the nuclear negotiations with Iran fail, Obamacare stripped down or reversed, and student grants eliminated and refinancing more difficult. Scandals are already starting to appear also with revelations about the Clinton foundation accepting millions of dollars from parties interested in the transfer of one of the largest uranium producers in the U.S. from a Canadian to a Russian company. No doubt will the Republican primary be contentious with the long list of candidates already in the mix, but with only one declared Democratic frontrunner, it's quite difficult to predict how the field will be in one month, much less the primary results. Much will boil down to the primary and candidate debates, leading up to the election, along with the usual campaign gaffs and controversies that spring up out of the wellspring of human error. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

New Attorney General Means New Changes?

As of today, April 23, the Senate confirmed that Loretta E. Lynch will our new Attorney General. Lynch is the United States attorney for the Eastern District of New York and was confirmed with a 56-43 vote. She is the first African-American woman to hold the position of Attorney General. While her confirmation took longer than probably some would hope it shows some hope for the future in the Justice Department. One issue that she wants to take on is that of the police. One of her advisers stated:

She really thinks the communities and the police officers have more in common than they realize.

Lynch has a strong relationship with many police groups who feel that they have unfairly criticized in high-profile cases that involve the death of African-Americans at their hands.

Ms. Lynch is concerned that morale in police departments has declined and that officers are being unfairly tarnished by episodes that do not reflect all of policing, several aides and friends said.

It sounds as if there will be rapid and highly public changes but that is not Lynch's goal. While she wants there to be changes she will make them on a "subtle but significant internal changes." She would like to make changes inside the Justice Department office, especially in terms of cyber-security cases, very much like the office restructuring done after Sept. 11 attacks.

In the immediate future she might be called on to support another task, the renewing of a section Patriot Act which expires in June of this year which she is a supporter of. This particular section allows the National Security Agency to acquire phone records from American citizens without a warrant or any evidence of law breaking.

While Lynch has not made any promises to what she will do has Attorney General, she did promise to do one thing... to strengthen the relationship between Congress and the Department of Justice.

Ms. Lynch told aides that she wanted a better relationship with Congress and planned to meet with lawmakers regularly. Just as with police groups, Ms. Lynch told aides, a lot can be accomplished with a simple change in tone.

Hopefully with a new Attorney General there will be a better justice system in America and less violence and crime in our streets.

Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/as-attorney-general-loretta-lynch-plans-to-shift-tone-for-justice-dept.html?ref=politics

For information about her Senate Confirmation:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/politics/loretta-lynch-attorney-general-vote.html?ref=politics

Chris Christie 2016 Presidential Bid

          Chris Christie has hit the ground running on his 2016 election campagin, With a long history of intrest in New Hampshire Christie shows that he understands how much power winning the first primary in the nation has over his political campaign After having been part of a few scandals, such as bridgegate (the closure of the George Washington Bridge) as well as another investigation involving Christie's role in firing Hunterdon County Assistant Prosecutor Bennett Barlyn, Christie has remained silent untill recently when he announced his candidacy for president in the 2016 election.
          In a speech he made in Washington DC Christie criticized Obama's and House Democrat's foregin poilcy decissions regarding both the Keystone Pipeline (a oil pipeline that would connect the Gulf of Mexico to Canada) and normalizing diplomatic relations with Cuba. The pipeline he said was being handled in an "insulting" manner, and that the US was not acting in a diplomatically friendly manner towards Canada. He said of Cuba that relations shouldn't be normalized because Cuba is a nation "that denies civil rights and freedoms to their people". It seems unwise to me for him to openly take such harsh stances on partisan issues such as these, the reason being that he shouldn't want to look like such a hardline republican and cause moderates and undeclared voters to back away from his campaign, expecially after leaving a period of political weakness brought on by his involvement in scandalous events.
          Another issue facing Christie's future in the 2016 election is his approval rating. Currently only about 38% of NJ voters approve of Christie's Job performance, as well as 65% of his constituents saying that he would not make a good president. If Christie has such a poor rapport with his constituency it seems like his chances at making a successful run for president are extreemly low. Though that may be why he has spent so much time in New Hampshire
         Because we maintain the first in the nation primary Christie has spent a considerable amount of time and money here in the state campagining for other republican representatives such as Walt Haverstein in his bid for Governor in 2014. And in short no other candidate has spent nearly as much time trying to convince the NH voter of their legitimacy as Governor Chrisie has. Though I personally believe that Governor Christie has a very slim chance of becoming the Republican candidate 2016 only time will tell if he can compete with the other Republican hopefuls.


sources
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4188582096001/power-play-can-christie-bounce-back/?#sp=show-clips
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jersey-gov-chris-christie-criminal-investigation/story?id=28753740
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/17/in-new-hampshire-speech-christie-takes-aim-at-dem-gov-hassan/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Lee_lane_closure_scandal#Possible_motives
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/christie-takes-aim-us-policy-toward-cuba-keystone
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/christie-faces-worst-ever-approval-ratings-new-jersey-article-1.2191366

Marco Rubio - A Prison Profiteer's Best Friend

 Okay, I went back and forth on what I wanted to do todays blog post about. Both topics I was debating between have personal application to my life. After some initial research into the first topic, I wondered about the chances that the second topic would be at ALL related, and low and behold…The two topics end up being quite intermingled and quite related. The prison system in FL and a spanish speaking candidate. 

My sister just flew down to Fla to turn herself in to serve some remaining time in jail. It’s a long story but she was living down there for drug treatment, and had been clean nearly two years when she relapsed and got herself into legal trouble down there. She did rehab time, and 60 days in jail. When my mom passed away in July of last year, they transferred her probation up here, when she stupidly got herself in trouble for drinking and driving up here, she did 5 weeks in Valley St. due to her former legal troubles. Florida listed her as a fugitive of the state during the time she was doing time up here, and wanted to send a private company to come retrieve her. LONG story short, she is so ready to be done with all of her legal troubles that she is now back down there serving time without having even been sentenced to it yet, to get ahead of the issue. This got me interested in what the deal is with Floridas jails and prison systems.

Random fun fact: rock road jail requires inmates to have a cash account for any services they want to use, like a phone call/ paper and pencil, etc.. they then DEDUCT 3$ a day from that cash account, just because. 

The other interest I had is in Marco Rubio for President. I am only allowing myself to watch Spanish channel TV this semester, if any at all, as a submersion technique in learning to speak it. I am taking a Spanish 2 class and have actually decided to continue on to a Spanish 3 non-credited class this summer, because I would like to be fluent someday. I have heard the name Marco Rubio scattered about now for a few days on the news programs of these three channels. Last night, I watched him address the Spanish Speaking American people on Univision. 

My first thought was: BRILLIANT! You will lose all of the Gay Rights voters to Hillary, but the Republicans are going for the larger population of voting potential, first generation spanish-speaking Americans. Hell, I will even listen to what he has to say here. For the record, the Univision journalist asked some tough questions about what in his 44 months in the senate he has done for Latino-American community, etc. I am not as well-versed as I would like to be in the language to give you an opinion on Rubio’s answer, but you can tell how comfortable he feels speaking it. 

I decided to go slightly less political, and more humanitarian in function, and started doing some research on the Florida Department of Corrections. They openly acknowledge that the management of a few of their Prisons, and most of their Jails, are being done by private contracting companies, or in other words, for-profit prisons. I decided to click the link to each one of their private prisons to see what the deal was, and I found that 5 of 7 of them were run by the same company- the GEO Group.

So then I google this group, and low and behold, there are PRwatch reports left and right about this group, the human rights violations taking place in their prisons. I found out some seriously interesting stuff, like:

“According to SEC filings, from 2008-2012 CEO George C. Zoley's compensation was an eye-popping $22,315,704 [4], almost all this garnered from U.S. taxpayers.” 

http://www.prwatch.org/print/12255

Also, I highly suggest reading the cited article to anyone interested in the GEO Group, who run prisons all over much of the Southern US. They must have a phenomenal PR department for the amount of findings against them they have for abuse, and settlements  regarding poor management and  wrongful death suits. I am surprised it hasn't been a country-wide outrage campaign yet, but obviously they keep a bunch of it under the radar. There is also some possible correlation between the increase in imprisoned people where theses private prisons get built. 

BAM! That is when it hit me, there is BIG business is private prisons. You don't need to adequately train or pay staff, and if that leads to human rights violations and abuse, then so be it right? Also, you can contract out Prisoner labor to continue to make more money off of FREE LABOR. Big business, and politics, usually go hand in hand. I couldn't help but wonder what would happen if I went and looked up Marco Rubio and GEO group… CA-CHING!!!!

My interests have been married all along and by their own interests. Private prisons love Marco Rubio, and they would love to have him as President! I found this article by PR watch initially posted published in 2011, and has been revised as of August 2012. The title of the article is: Marco Rubio, GEO Group, and a Legacy of Corruption.

http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/08/11591/marco-rubio-geo-group-and-legacy-corruption

This is a blog post, so I wont go on and report all about the article for you, but some fun facts I found were:

1. GEO Group is the TOP republican party contributor in FL

2.They have two PAC’s that operate in FL: the GEO Group Inc. PAC, and the Florida GEO Group Inc.PAC 

3. “the corporation gave $85,000 to the Republican Party of Florida from 2006 through 2009, along with tens of thousands of dollars in additional contributions to other state Republican Party PACs and campaigns of individual Republican candidates.”

4. “2005 through 2010, Geo, through its PACs, dispensed an additional $15,000 to the National Republican Congressional Committee, an additional $32,000 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and an additional $10,000 over 2009 and 2010 directly to the Marco Rubio for U.S. Senate PAC.”

5. “September 13, 2010, several top Geo corporate executives, along with Geo lobbyists and subcontractors, gave a total of $33,500 in individual contributions to the Florida Victory Committee, a PAC created for the benefit of three other PACS: Marco Rubio for U.S. Senate, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the Republican Party of Florida.”

6. The CEO of the GEO Group made a total of $7,400 in personal contributions to the Marco Rubio campaign on a single day.

7. “Geo was the most generous single-interest/corporate donor to contribute to the Florida Victory Committee during this period. It is also worth noting that, of the $33,500 contributed by Geo and its affiliates to this particular PAC, $10,000 came directly from Guy and Neel White, owners and chief executive officers of White Construction Company, the Geo subcontractor awarded the $114 million contract for the construction of Blackwater CF.”

Blackwater CF refers to the Blackwater corrections facility that is run by the GEO Group, and was controversially appropriated which lead to criminal investigations and the resigning of Rubio’s former budget officer. “the most notable individual charged to date is former Rep. Ray Sansom (R-Destin), who, while serving as Rubio's budget chief, inserted language into the state's 2008-2009 budget for what was to become Blackwater CF…while serving as successor to Speaker Rubio, resigned amid criminal and ethics investigations -- chief of which is the allegation that he falsified the 2007-2008 budget by inserting a $6 million appropriation into the state spending bill for the construction of an aircraft hangar for Destin businessman and prominent Florida Republican Party contributor, Jay Odom.”

Here is a document on GEO Groups financing activities from 1999-2014: http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/geo-group/7dfa33488aad4908ac1c75336c20db05

PLEASE CHECK THAT ONE OUT. Marco Rubio is third and George W. Bush is fourth for total campaign contributions by the GEO Groups PAC’s.

My opinion? DOESN’T MATTER. These things happened, and are still happening. We are allowing corporate interest to make slaves of people. It just needs to be known, talked about and looked at. The country should reasonably fear for the future of our Federal Prison System if Mr. Rubio becomes President. 

The Evolution of the Presidential Image: the Crafting for Public Consumption

“I am who the media says I am.

I say what they say I say.

I become who they say I’ve become.”

 -Barack Obama, The Audacity of Hope

                   Photo by Pete Souza, whitehouse.gov

The President’s public image has been the concern of every administration since the invention of the camera. Abraham Lincoln was seen as an uncivilized country lawyer upon his election. His photographer, Matthew Brady, was regarded by Lincoln as the man who made him president. Images of Lincoln with messy hair and meager attire soon became a refined and combed gentleman with Brady’s crafting. Current public knowledge permits that Franklin Roosevelt was a paraplegic since long before he took office, but only three pictures of him in a wheelchair exist. As far as the public was concerned in the 20 years after his death, Roosevelt was an able-bodied man and if any pictures were taken of the contrary, cameras were confiscated by the Secret Service. Lincoln and Roosevelt had carefully crafted images so as to be viewed more favorably in the eyes of the public.

When Obama, much like Lincoln, was faced with considerable scrutiny at the beginning of his first term, the Obama administration began a synchronized campaign to craft a new image of the President in the eye of the public. One of the methods used was emphasis on association with popular culture, accomplished through dozens of photos where celebrities were pictured with Obama. Pete Souza, the current White House photographer, was the first to distribute images of the President via social media. With apps like Flickr, Instagram, and Pinterest in its arsenal, the administration viewed independent media as being no longer needed to represent its point of view to the public. Press photographers were excluded from various events while Souza had unrestricted access to the president.

In response, 38 news organizations, including the likes of ABC News, CBS News, CNN, and NBC News signed a letter of protest to the White House in response to Jay Carney for ignoring complaints of coverage and access. A section of the letter reads:

“As surely as if they were placing a hand over the journalist’s camera lens, officials in this administration are blocking the public from having an independent view of important functions of the Executive Branch of government.”

The First Amendment defends “the public and press from abridgment of their rights of access to information about the operation of their government” which seems to be at odds with the policies of the White House. Events to which independent media has been barred was due to the declaration of the event being ‘private,’ only for the White House to post its own photos of the event. Scrolling through the White House photo gallery, one can examine how carefully created and symbolic each picture is. You can see the symbolism of President Obama talking with Governor Mike Pence, with the nearby portrait of Abraham Lincoln looking the other way, or the picture of Obama looking up at a portrait of John Kennedy, who is in turn looking down on him. Each picture was carefully crafted to project a certain image, agenda, or feeling, ultimately to better the view of the President. Under Bush, or any other President, photos by White House staff were used as carefully staged propaganda to heighten public opinion of the highest office. Supposed violations of the First Amendment are certainly always debatable to some degree, and Jay Carney defends his administration saying every president has had meetings the media has not been allowed to attend. Some argue that social media has eliminated the need for independent media in some cases. The various media organizations counter Carney with they have had the least access to the Obama administration compared to any other.  Should independent media continue to be viewed as obsolete with the integration and usefulness of social media, or should the press be just as welcome at White House events as the White House’s own photography staff?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WrZKgTNE0g

Technological advancements and their effect on security.

A recent article published by the Wall Street Journal discusses expected security threats to states, businesses, and individuals as a result of the persistent development of technology.   The article considers what may occur when technology is placed in the wrong hands.  A few of the suggested threats include biological warfare, hacking, and drones.  For example, as drones become more available to the public they could be used inappropriately for spying purposes or new scientific developments could assist individuals in developing diseases and exposing them to the public.  These examples seem pretty drastic and may sound like they came right out of a NBC TV show, but they are perfectly possible considering the invasive practices that already occur with our current technology. 

I think with new technology will come great debates about the role of the government.  We already live in an era where privacy doesn’t necessarily mean what it used to.  We choose to sacrifice certain elements of privacy in exchange for protection, but does transparency mean safety? How much is too much? What does privacy mean to a person in 2015?

It’s interesting to see how these technologies have already affected U.S. security.  For instance, the current drone policy as a counterterrorism strategy has been controversial due to questions of legality and civilian deaths.  There is no doubt that the use of drones decreases U.S. military casualties, however as a long term solution it is insufficient.  One negative affect of this policy is increased anti-American sentiment and contribution to recruitment for terrorist organizations in the Middle East as a result of civilian deaths.  So it would seem that terrorists are being replaced as quickly as they are being taken out, and at the expense of hundreds, perhaps thousands of civilians. 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-laws-for-new-threats-like-drones-and-bioterrorism-1429297143

Can We Trust Cuba To Be Removed From State Sponsor of Terror List?

The White House announced today that President Barack Obama, will removed Cuba from the list of state terrorism. According to Julie Pace, President Obama sent a message to Congress saying that, the government of Cuba "has not provided any support for international terrorist" over the last six months. Is this enough months to trust Cuba? we can all have different opinion on this question, but so far I think this will be very hard issue to pass in Congress. recently, when the President was at Panama Summit, they were a lot of talk in the state saying why the President refuse to meet with Netanyahu, but decided to make deal with a communist regime. I understand that things haven't work out with Cuba over the past 60 years, do you think this is a time to make right?

Hillary Clinton 2016?

          Hillary Clinton has officially announced that she will run for president in 2016. This is amid several recent scandals, including her private email server and her handling of the Benghazi attack that took place on September 11th 2012. It seems to me that Hillary must be extremely confident if the thinks she'll be able to run as an effective candidate when her credibility both as a person, and as a political official is so questionable.

          Her private Email server is such an important issue for several reasons. The first being that because this was a private Email server the government has no record of any email sent or received By Ms. Clinton. Her aids also used private Email, and the server had the capacity to delete Emails completely, leaving no record of their existence. Not to mention the fact that a hacker could have easily breached the security of the server. The frightening truth is that Hilary intentionally used a private Email so that the state department would have no record, meaning that she intended to keep her correspondence between important officials secret from, not only the people, but the government as well. Though She Herself tuned over 55,000 emails from her server "a proper search was not conducted" according to Judicial Watch Lawyer Michael Bekesha.

          Hillary's history of corruption begins in 1974 when Hillary Clinton worked for the House Judiciary Committee. At this time they were investigating Richard Nixon's involvement with the Watergate scandal. Hillary along with several other Members of the committee conspired to remove Nixon's right to legal council. In order to do this She, according to Her Boss Jerry Zeifman, stole documents and wrote a fraudulent legal brief that ignored the right to legal council precedent set during the impeachment of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas. Zeifman believed that the brief was so fraudulent that had Hillary submitted it to a judge he believed she would have been disbarred. This event serves to underline her obvious contempt for the legal processes and institutions of the Constitution and this Country.

          The fact of the matter is that Hillary Clinton has been the center of many scandals over her entire political career. Many other presidential candidates with less storied pasts have run and lost because of them. This means that unless Hillary is ready to loose She'll need a virtual media firestorm of support in order to be elected.


Sources
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/documents-obtained-judicial-watch-reveal-top-hillary-clinton-advisers-knew-immediately-assault-benghazi-armed-attack/
http://www.judicialwatch.org/bulletins/judicial-watch-the-clintons/
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-announces-list-washingtons-ten-most-wanted-corrupt-politicians-2008/
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/hillary-clinton-email-state-department-foia-116030.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2981534/posts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpPrhkmV_rA

Death Penalty for the Boston Marathon Bomber?

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Found Guilty, May Face Death Penalty

As many of us already know The Boston Marathon was bombed almost two years ago to the date. It's known the bombing was planned and carried out by the Tsarnaev brothers. Tamerlan, the older of the two who was shot and killed during a standoff with Watertown Police, and the younger of the two Dzhokhar. With Dzhokhar being the only one left to stand trial, he was charged with 30 counts with many having the death penalty as a sentence if found guilty. Today the jury came to the verdict after about 12 hours of deliberation over a 2 day period. They found Tsarnaev to be guilty on all 30 counts his faced. Now, the same jury moves to the sentencing phase. With more witness testimonies the group of seven women and 5 men will have to decided if Tsarnaev should be put to death or not. The vote for him to receive the death penalty must be unanimous.

The question comes into play now if death is the easy way out for a man who injured over 200 people and killed 4. The Tsarnaev brothers set out to cause death and destruction on innocent civilians, but is sentencing him to death enough justice for the atrocities they caused? I believe not. Making him suffer in prison for the rest of his life seems more fitting for me. Those in favor of the death penalty might claim that their is no mistakes in this case, everyone knows he did it, thus there can't be any mistake in killing an innocent man which has happened in other death penalty cases. But isn't that the easy way out for a 21 year old? He would have to spend his entire life thinking about the decisions he made if not sentenced to death. He's a coward and doesn't deserve the right to forget about the mistakes he's made. Let him rot in prison. Opinions? Do you think that seeing we live so close to Boston we're more likely to lean one way or another on the issue? Is the death penalty really the answer?


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32225787
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/08/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-verdict-boston-marathon-bombing

Funding for Food Safety

In 2010 Congress passed a law that allowed the Food and Drug Administration to create new rules and powers to prevent further food outbreaks that were getting people sicks. However, Congress has not provided the money to the FDA to enforce these practices. The FDA requested 580 million dollars to make these changes, but Congress has given them less than half of this amount.

An estimated 48 million Americans have food-borne illnesses each year, but without the required funding for these changes this number could increase. Since Congress is in the hands of Republicans and they are trying to cut back on spending the FDA is not sure they will receive the money they need. “If we keep shortchanging the F.D.A., it will continue to cost us billions of dollars a year to deal with food-borne illness,” said Ms. DeLauro, a member of the appropriations subcommittee that oversees the agency’s funding.

Without the proper funding the FDA will not be able to train 2,000 employees on the new standards that are required in food safety. It is also believed that the agency will not be able to oversee food imports as strictly as they would like. Harold Rogers, Republican of Kentucky said that anything more than 100 million dollars will be hard to give to the FDA. Should the FDA get the money it is asking for or are they asking for too much at the wrong time?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/us/food-safety-laws-funding-is-far-below-estimated-requirement.html?ref=us&_r=0

The Uniting of Nations Gone Sour

Illustration by Joohee Yoon via New York Times

It is no secret that the United Nations includes non-democratic members. In fact, out of the current 193 member nations, less than half are led by  democratic governments. The point of the UN is to promote international cooperation including issues on human rights and social justice. Yet, many of the member nations that head or are members of the Human Rights Council or the Commission on the Status of Women are known violators of the very statutes on which the United Nations stands.

For example Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Venezuela are all members of the UN Human Rights Council. Ironically, all three of these countries have histories of suppressing the rights of their citizens. Saudi Arabia with it's strict congruence with Sharia Law and spotty claims to citizens right to due process, has repeatedly been listed for the ongoing and most severe human rights violations. Qatar, which also has a history of suppressing protesters or anyone that would speak against social principles, while also violating the rights of migrant workers. Venezuela, where the socialist and militaristic regime is known for it's harsh responses to protesters.

Another example being the fact that Iran and Sudan are both members of the Commission on the Status of Women. While Iran continues to sanction the stoning of women for the crime of adultery and other such "honor killings". In Sudan, young girls are subject to genital mutilation. All of these instances are recognized as gender specific violence and therefore human rights violations. Yet both countries are represented on this commission and allowed to pass judgement on other nations.

Specifically noted by Israel's Ambassador to the UN, Ron Prosor, is that Israel in particular is targeted far more than others as a result of these loose committee membership legitimacy situations. For example, the Non-Aligned Movement, consisting of 120 member countries, is a bloc and has been chaired by Iran since 2012. This gives Iran the ability to raise 120 votes against Israel, it's enemy. Also, going back to the Human Rights Council, in it's agenda there is Item 4 which brings up issues that require the councils attention. There is also an Item 7, which is specifically for human rights situations in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories. This means that there is an entire council agenda item that can almost exclusively target Israel, as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia serve to judge. Ambassador Prosor repeatedly states how Israel faces multiple condemnations from these committees and commissions while there are violators sitting on them as members.

While I am a supporter of the UN and what it stands for, I feel that the strength of it's original standings has dwindled. As an organization that is meant to serve the world justice, it lets an awful lot slip through the cracks. The fact that some countries serve on these committees and commissions (that are meant to uphold rights and justices) while openly violating these very ideals, I feel should be an embarrassment to the UN leadership. Continuing to allow the UN's democratic forum to be taken advantage of, and to be manipulated in order to hide and overlook the discrepancies of some countries is a mistake. All nations need to be held accountable for their actions, and they should not be allowed to abuse a system that is meant for the benefit of the international community.

Sources:

• http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/01/opinion/united-in-ignominy.html?src=me&module=Ribbon&version=context&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Most%20Emailed&pgtype=Multimedia
• http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2014/country-chapters/qatar?page=1
• http://www.unfpa.org/

Human Rights Council Agenda Link:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/10session/ProvAgenda10session.pdf
H.R.C Member List:
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/CurrentMembers.aspx