Three American groups that oppose torture — the National Religious Campaign Against Torture, Amnesty International USA, and the Center For Constitutional Rights — delivered a petition with 60,000 signatures to the White House this week demanding an apology.

In 2007, the Canadian government admitted Arar had been mistakenly pinpointed as an Al Qaeda ally, apologized, and compensated him.

President Obama ended the “extraordinary rendition” program in 2009 and Politifact noted that the Obama administration “has announced new procedural safeguards concerning individuals who are sent to foreign countries” but some rights groups claim those safeguards aren’t adequate.

Citing the requirement for “remedy and redress” in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the U.N. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment — which prohibits knowingly transferring detainees to countries, like Bashar al-Assad’s Syria, that engage in torture — the letter campaign (PDF) asked signees to themselves apologize and then demand the U.S. do the same. An Amnesty press release said:

“It was so painful,” Maher Arar said of the beatings he endured, “that I forgot every enjoyable moment in my life.”

Released without charge and allowed to return home to Canada, Maher Arar received an apology and compensation from the Canadian government for its role in his treatment. But the U.S. government has failed to apologize or offer Maher Arar any form of remedy – despite its obligation to do so under the UN Convention Against Torture and other human rights treaties.

The letter campaign emphasized that additional steps need to be taken for accountability in the Arar case, including more explicit prohibitions on transfer, not relying only on diplomatic assurances about the treatment of detainees before transfers, ending discrimination in “no fly lists” and investigating and prosecuting those who broke the law.

Amnesty also released an infographic — using a mock-up of Arar’s 3-foot-wide, 7-foot-high and 6-foot-deep Syrian cell — highlighting the numbers around his detention: 12 days of incommunicado detention in the U.S., 351 in Syria while enduring torture, and 0 charges filed against Arar. However, there is no figure for the “number of people like Maher Arar subjected to the U.S. government’s ‘extraordinary rendition’ program.” That number? The Amnesty infographic boldly states, “UNKNOWN.”

Mariela Castro Espín, daughter of Cuban president Raúl Casto

“The State Department needs to wake up from its delusional love fest with the dictators in Havana,” said right-wing House Foreign Affairs chair Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL). Republican Members of Congress released web videos and organized conference calls denouncing the visa as “outrageous.”

Even presumptive GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney got in on the action, releasing a statement accusing the Obama administration of “a slap in the face to all those brave individuals in Cuba who are enduring relentless persecution.”

Ros-Lehtinen and Reps. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL), David Rivera (R-FL) and Albio Sires (R-NJ) wrote a strongly-worded letter to the State Department saying:

The administration’s appalling decision to allow regime agents into the U.S. directly contradicts Congressional intent and longstanding U.S. foreign policy.

If it’s “longstanding U.S. foreign policy” to deny Mariela Castro a visa to enter the U.S., someone forgot to tell President George W. Bush. The Bush administration granted Castro not one but three visas to enter the U.S. in 2001 and 2002. State Department spokesman william Ostick told the Miami Herald:

Mariela Castro visited once in 2001 and twice in 2002. I can’t discuss her visas specifically, but you can assume she needed one to travel.

An Obama surrogate, Freddy Balsera, told the Herald:

In fact, the top State Department Official in charge of Latin America at the time was a Cuban American. Where was their criticism then? Nowhere, because ultimately this is all about politics for them.

A ThinkProgress search of the Lexis Nexis news database for Mariela Castro’s name during 2001 and 2002 returned no results relevant to her trips to the U.S.

Former attendees at the Latin American Studies Association (LASA) said that Cuba has long been a presence at LASA conferences. This year, the State Department accepted 60 visas, denied 11, and is still processing 6. A State spokesman said visas couldn’t be rejected simply because “we don’t like you.”

LASA’s president told the Associated Press that Castro’s appearance at the conference was “an academic issue, not a political issue,” and that she’d answered a call for papers like any other conference speaker.

A map showing West Bank settlements produced by Peace Now

The E.U. Foreign Affairs Council statement, however, stressed the importance of slowing the settlement enterprise before the Israeli communities jutting deep into a future Palestinian state forclose the possibility of peace. Noting that “settlements remain illegal under international law, irrespective of recent decisions by the government of Israel,” the 27 E.U. foreign ministers wrote:

The viability of a two-state solution must be maintained. The EU expresses deep concern about developments on the ground which threaten to make a two-state solution impossible…

The EU expresses deep concern regarding settler extremism and incitement by settlers in the West Bank. The EU condemns continuous settler violence and deliberate provocations against Palestinian civilians. It calls on the government of Israel to bring the perpetrators to justice and to comply with its obligations under international law.

Settler extremism has not only affected Palestinians, but also the Israeli army, which last year was subjected to a reprisal attack by ideological settlers.

The document also cited rapid settlement expansion — settlement construction increased 660 percent in the first six months after 2010′s settlement freeze — and the legalizing of so-called outpost settlements that are at inception considered illegal by Israeli law. The Israeli government said the E.U. statement was “based on a partial, biased and one-sided depiction of realities on the ground.”

Palestinians, too, share some blame in the failure to get a two-state solution off the ground. The Second Intifada, an often violent Palestinian uprising after the Oslo peace process stalled in the late 1990s, shook Israeli confidence that peace was possible. Just last month, Palestinian Authority President Mahmood Abbas rebuffed Israeli overtures for talks without preconditions, insisting on an Israeli settlement freeze.

The international community and the U.S. consider the settlements “illegitimate.” Several high profile figues, including top current and former Israeli officials, recently called for various forms of halting settlement activity.

Bahraini rights activist Nabeel Rajab leads a group of protesters

A close U.S. ally that hosts the Navy’s Fifth Fleet, Bahrain promised reforms after an independent commission last fall cited problems with the response to demonstrations. No tangible steps toward reforms, though, have been initiated. Talks between the government and the opposition failed to get underway, and this February, tens of thousands of demonstrators revived on-going robust protests. Now, the government appears to have had enough. A Bahraini government spokesman, Sheikh Abdulaziz bin Mubarak Al Khalifa, told the news agency Reuters:

Because of the escalation in violence, we are looking into the perpetrators and people who use print, broadcast and social media to encourage illegal protest and violence around the country.

If applying the law means tougher action, then so be it.

Al Khalifa’s accusations against protesters must resonate with human rights activist Nabeel Rajab, the head of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights. While few credible reports about the protests cite widespread violence against the government, Rajab’s case offers a window into other charges Al Khalifa levels against the movement. Rajab was already facing charges of participating in an “illegal” demonstration — meaning any demonstration at all in Bahrain — and was on Saturday arrested by authorities at the door of his airplane as he returned from foreign travel.

The new charges against Rajab? An active user of the social media platform with almost 150,000 followers, Rajab was arrested for sending “insulting tweets” about the government.

Today, Amnesty International declared Rajab a “prisoner of conscience.” Sanjeev Bery, Amnesty International USA’s Middle East & North Africa advocacy director, said:

It is utterly ridiculous that the Bahraini government would arrest human rights advocate Nabeel Rajab for sending tweets. Instead of attempting to silence critics, the Bahraini government needs to start listening to what they have to say about free speech and freedom of expression. Rajab is a prisoner of conscience being held solely for expressing his views. He must be released immediately.

The Bahrain Center for Human Rights itself warns that another activist — Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja — is in dire straits due to a two-month old hunger strike against his detention. Amnesty chimed in on that case, which involves another 20 activists, as well today, noting: “Amnesty International considers all those currently detained in the case as prisoners of conscience and is calling for their immediate and unconditional release.”

The situation on the ground in Beijing remains uncertain but new reports suggest that progress is being made by the State Department in reaching an agreement with Chinese authorities to permit Chen to take up a fellowship from an American University, “where he can be accompanied by his wife and two children,” reports State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland. But while Romney was quick to attack the Obama administration while sensitive negotiations were underway yesterday between U.S. diplomats and Chinese authorities, the presumptive Republican nominee has never answered questions about whether his own family has profited from Chinese surveillance of its own citizenry.

In March, The New York Times revealed that a Bain-run fund, in which a Romney family blind trust had invested between $100,000 and $250,000, purchased Uniview Technologies in December. Uniview is a Chinese company that claims to be the biggest supplier of surveillance cameras to the Chinese government and produces “infrared antiriot” cameras and software that allow police to share images in real time and provide technology for an emergency command center in Tibet “that provides a solid foundation for the maintenance of social stability and the protection of people’s peaceful life,” according to Uniview’s web site.

Security cameras played a central role in the house-arrest imposed on Chen Guangcheng’s family. After his escape to Beijing and the U.S. embassy, Chen reported that Chinese authorities installed seven video cameras and an electric fence at his house. However, it is not known whether Uniview supplied these cameras.

Yesterday, in a surprise call to a Congressional hearing, Chen told lawmakers, “I’m really afraid for my other family members’ lives” and “[n]ow those security officers in my house basically have said, ‘We want to see what else Chen Guangcheng can do.’”

With the news that Chinese authorities may permit Chen to leave China with his family, a political crisis may be averted. But Mitt Romney and his family’s investment of between $100,000 and $250,000 in Uniview Technologies should raise questions about Romney’s ties to a company that openly advertises its close ties to the Chinese government’s state security apparatus and the use of its technologies in “both peacetime and wartime.”

At no time did any US official speak to Chen about physical or legal threats to his wife and children. Nor did Chinese officials make any such threats to us. U.S. interlocutors did make clear that if Chen elected to stay in the Embassy, Chinese officials had indicated to us that his family would be returned to [their home in] Shandong, and they would lose their opportunity to negotiate for reunification.

(Photo: AP)

The President outlined a number of important initiatives geared toward creating a more cohesive and effective government-wide strategy to combat atrocities. Some of these initiatives have been underway for some time — including the creation of the first-ever White House position dedicated to preventing and addressing war crimes and atrocities or the visa-ban issued to ensure human rights abusers do not enter the United States.

One of the newer initiatives the President announced today was the formal establishment of the Atrocities Prevention Board, or APB, created under the 2010 Presidential Study Directive which declared mass atrocities and genocide to be a “core national security interest and core moral responsibility.” The APB, comprised of senior government officials across nearly a dozen government agencies, will meet regularly to help identify and address atrocity threats. It will also help manage the governmental bureaucracy — and recommend any necessary changes –- to ensure a more effective and cohesive response. With its inaugural meeting later today, the APB emphasizes the centrality of atrocities prevention within President Obama’s foreign policy agenda.

Another notable new initiative is an executive order that authorizes sanctions and visa bans against those who commit or facilitate grave human rights abuses through information technology. For now this executive order is specifically related to the ongoing brutality in Syria and Iran but there is great potential for expansion, particularly because these sanctions target not just governments but companies who enable such abuse.

Taken together, these initiatives are long-overdue and welcomed tools. Of course, there is no “one size fits all” model for preventing atrocities, particularly given different actors that are involved and varying methods employed to commit such abuse. As Obama spoke today, the situation in Syria continues to devolve rapidly and clashes between Sudan and South Sudan are escalating.

To ensure these policies have teeth and are around long after Obama leaves office, the administration needs to do a few key things, some of which have been highlighted for action under the APB. First, the explicit integration of genocide prevention with long-term conflict prevention, especially in light of the 2010 Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, or QDDR, which elevated civilian protection and conflict prevention within the State Department and at USAID. While there are differences between the two, the nature of today’s conflicts means close coordination can help avoid interagency tensions and ensure that specific policies complement each other.

In addition, robust support for wider governance and rule of law programs –- such as effective judicial and security sector reform –- will be essential to help protect civilians over the long term as they mitigate the potential for atrocities and abuses to occur. A 2011 groundbreaking World Bank report on conflict, security and development noted that “strengthening legitimate institutions and governance to provide citizen security, justice, and jobs is crucial to break cycles of violence.” Currently our programs in this area are so weak they often undermine development and democracy promotion agendas.

Finally, expanded training for diplomats and development experts deployed to conflict or conflict prone environments can contribute significantly to defusing crises. The 2011 Failed States Index noted that 35 countries merit “alert” classification — the highest level of vulnerability for collapse or conflict. As a joint CAP-Humanity United report noted, ensuring that government officials have the right training and skill sets may be only one piece of the puzzle but it is long overdue and can help guide smart policy making, whether on the ground or back in Washington.

Years of underinvestment in civilian tools have hindered the U.S. government’s ability to help prevent atrocities around the globe. By harnessing the power of multiple agencies and working closely with Congress to employ a full range of tools, the President can now accelerate his commitment to a more coherent and comprehensive response. A worthy goal, to say the least.

I have to be blunt: a lot of what I enjoyed about the movie was simply that it looked different from Hollywood’s normal white monochrome. I adore Michelle Yeoh, who’s nailed Aung San Suu Kyi’s gestures and body language to a ridiculous extent here, and I appreciated that the movie showed her, for example, sweating through silk blouses as she campaigns or as she heads to the British Embassy for yet another call home to Michael that will be interrupted by Burma’s wiretappers. Rather than erasing differences between the Burmese people Suu works with and the kind of Western folks we see on TV, Besson rests in them. The woman who runs Suu’s house through her years of exile wears a kind of face paint that, as it later becomes clear in the movie’s long province-based campaign sequences, is a sign membership in one of Burma’s regional ethnic groups. Suu’s male advisors are mostly dudes who are shorter than she is. No one’s exceptionally handsome or beautiful, and the Burmese soldiers who enforce Suu’s house arrest aren’t particularly ripped or menacing. They’re all just people, and it’s so nice to have the vast majority of them be non-white.

Half the movie, though, is dedicated to one white dude: Michael Aris (David Thewlis, less angsty here than as Remus Lupin in the Harry Potter movies), Suu’s husband, who raised their children in England during her years of house arrest, campaigned for her Nobel Peace Price, and stayed steadfast during their years of separation. He died of prostate cancer in England after the Burmese regime grotesquely denied him a visa on the grounds that the country couldn’t possibly provide adequate medical care during his stay and suggested Suu leave. The lead-up to that final decision to stick with principle, for Suu and Michael to embrace the love of Burma that was the core of their marriage even if it denied them a final good-bye, is the core of the movie.

And that’s both the strength and the weakness of The Lady, a political drama that is inherently and necessarily a domestic drama. Before her arrest, Suu travels the country in one of the few sequences I wish had been a more developed exploration of Burma’s politics rather than a slide show. But afterwards, she’s mostly alone, and the same sequences repeat over and over: calls to Michael and the boys, the boys clenched in her arms when they can get to Burma, pulled tight to Michael when they return, or when the family suffers an emotionally crippling setback. These sequences aren’t unaffecting, but they lose their impact on repetition, and made me wish that we could have swapped several of them out in exchange for more scenes with Suu’s advisors or with the clandestine political networks they mobilize. It’s a joy seeing information move from person to person in defiance of the brutal regime, and I wish we had a better sense of the people who set those networks in motion, who went to jail while Suu endured a more comfortable house arrest (she apparently told Besson that his favorite movie of hers was The Fifth Element).

But there’s no denying that the story’s tremendous. And there’s something very valuable about having The Lady hit theaters just at the time that Aung San Suu Kyi’s taking her seat in Burma’s parliament. If nothing else, it’s a reminder of what she was subjected to. The military junta may have been dissolved, and President Thein Sein may be making surprising and encouraging moves. But that history is far from expunged, and now, more than ever, is a time to remember it with hope for the future and a fierce determination not to return to the past.

Obama initially listed some heartening interactions between Iranians and Americans — such as the best foreign language film Oscar for the Iranian movie A Separation. He continued that Iranians and Americans both use the same tools on the internet to communicate, but that Iran’s increasingly repressive government hinders the free flow of information:

OBAMA: Because of the actions of the Iranian regime, an ‘Electronic Curtain’ has fallen around Iran, a barrier that stops the free flow of information and ideas into the country, and denies the rest of the world the benefit of interacting with the iranian people who have so much to offer…

Even as we’ve imposed sanctions on the Iranian government, today my administration is issuing new guidelines to make it easier for American businesses to provide software and services into Iran that will make it easier for Iranian people to use the internet.

Watch the video:

Indeed, the Iranian government cracks down on satellite dishes (somewhat futilely) and jams signals by international broadcasters over U.N. objections.

Amid the increasingly severe internet restrictions of the Electronic Curtain, the Obama administration today released new Treasury Department guidelines removing some of the ambiguities that hindered American software producers from allowing their products to be used in Iran. In a blog post, Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes expanded on the new guidelines and wrote:

Today we are taking another step, by making it easier for Iranian citizens to get the software and services they need to connect with the rest of the world through modern communications methods. The U.S. Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) today issued guidance that will facilitate the availability of software and services that Iranians have told us are essential in order to effectively use the Internet.

A Treasury release outlined some of the specific areas where allowances are now made to export software to Iran, including software for chatting and voice-over-internet-phonecalls and related mobile apps, data storage like Dropbox, web browsers, RSS readers, and more.

The benefits of the free flow of internet information to and from Iran was on full display last week when a Facebook page drew Iranians and Israelis — two peoples whose countries are seemingly approaching the brink of war — to share messages of mutual admiration, solidarity, and speak out against confrontation.