Obama’ 250 Tough Calls -Newsweek

 

By Stuart Taylor Jr. | NEWSWEEK

Newsweek – What should Barack Obama do with the 250 men who are still locked up in the Guantánamo Bay prison camp? Of the many problems the new president will face, this is one of the most difficult, and one he must get right. Along with it, he must answer equally tough questions about how his administration will deal with suspected terrorists in the future: Where will they be held and what legal rights will they have? Which interrogation methods will President Obama allow—and which will he forbid?

He made some of the answers to these questions clear in his campaign promises, and he would be wise to announce his intentions on or before Inauguration Day. Obama should and probably will renounce all brutal interrogation methods, not just those that the Bush administration defines as torture. He should and probably will discontinue or overhaul the widely derided and largely failed system of “military commissions” that President Bush created in 2001 to try suspected terrorists for war crimes. And he should and probably will announce a detailed plan to close Guantánamo, possibly within a year.

In my view, that plan should include promptly appointing a bipartisan, blue-ribbon commission to evaluate the prisoners. The commission’s mandate should include an exhaustive study of each prisoner: how he has been treated at Gitmo; whether there is enough admissible evidence to prosecute him in a federal court or by a regular military court-martial; whether he appears to be dangerous; whether to release or continue detaining those who do appear to be dangerous but cannot be tried; and whether to pay compensation to some or all of those who have been wrongly detained. The commission’s proceedings and final report should be public, except to allow for the protection of intelligence sources and methods. Those who are found not to be dangerous should be released or transferred to other countries. As soon as possible, Obama should move the remaining detainees to prisons inside the United States to erase Guantánamo’s ugly symbolic stain on America’s image.

But such steps alone may well fall short of expectations around the world and in the Democratic Party’s liberal base. Even Bush has said that he wanted to close Guantánamo and denied that he sanctioned torture. Obama’s global constituency and the human-rights community want him to make a clean break with Bush by banning even moderately coercive interrogation methods that may (or may not) violate international law against “humiliating and degrading treatment.” They also want him immediately to abolish—not just move —the system of detention-without-charges that Guantánamo represents.

Obama should not be stampeded into taking those steps without careful deliberation. (Voters won’t rush him. Only 29 percent of respondents in a recent Quinnipiac poll favored closing the prison; 44 percent were opposed.) Both policy and politics argue against deciding whether to ban moderately coercive methods until Obama and his subordinates have had time to study the disputed evidence on the effectiveness of these techniques—and until the president has sought bipartisan support (including that of John McCain) in Congress.

The hardest decision will be whether to release the scores of apparently dangerous detainees who cannot be convicted of crimes—or to continue holding them without charges in American lockups. The 250 who remain at Guantánamo (about 550 others have been released since 2002) include at least 15 alleged Qaeda leaders and another 60 men whom the Bush administration classifies as eligible to be tried by military commissions. The other 175 or so would be difficult or impossible to prosecute in any court: some have committed no crimes, and the evidence against others is inadmissible or not strong enough. The administration has deemed about 100 of those 175 to be potentially dangerous.

Some moderate Democratic (and Republican) experts argue cogently that Obama and Congress should continue to hold detainees without charges at least for a while longer, but provide them with more due process to help decide whether and when they should be released. Some have called for a new “national-security court” to sort out which detainees can be held without charges and for how long. Others counter that continuing to hold prisoners without charges will foment so much hatred of America abroad that doing so could be more dangerous than releasing them. This is a worthy debate, and it will be a real first test of Obama’s resourcefulness—not just as a politician, but as a student, and former professor, of the law.

© 2008

Royal Commission of Inquiry On Najib?

Even more imperative Najib submit himself to RCI to clear him of all allegations from murder to corruption

Shah Alam High Court judge Datuk Mohd Zaki Md Yasin yesterdayacquitted political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda of the charge of abetment in the murder of Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu on October 19, 2006 on the ground that no evidence was adduced by the prosecution to contradict or challenge the exculpatory parts of Razak’s affidavit in his earlier unsuccessful bail application.

The judge said: “In the absence of the rebuttal evidence against the statements, coupled with the fact that there is no legal onus for Razak to rebut any statutory presumptions, there is clearly no reason for the statements to be ignored and rejected”.

Most Malaysians are baffled by the very technical reason for the acquittal.

While it would not be right for anyone to prejudge the guilt or innocence of any person in the murder of Altantuya, the fact of the abominable and heinous murder of the Mongolian translator, shot twice in the head in a jungle clearing in Shah Alam and blown up with C4 explosives available only to the military, setting off political, diplomatic and international reverberations that have not subsided , is a fact that cannot be extinguished.

With the acquittal of Razak Baginda in the murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu, it is even more imperative that the Prime Minister-in-waiting Datuk Seri Najib Razak should submit himself to a Royal Commission of Inquiry on all the allegations ranging from murder to corruption dogging and haunting him and Malaysia.

I reiterate my call during the debate on the 2009 Budget in Parliament for a Royal Commission of Inquiry to investigate and clear Najib of all the allegations made against him so that he could take over as the sixth Prime Minster of Malaysia next March unencumbered by the weight of grave and serious allegations against him – whether locally or internationally.

Najib had all along pleaded innocence to all the allegations. He should all the more support the establishment of a Royal Commission of Inquiry which can more credibly and authoritatively vindicate his innocence.

If Najib is still unprepared to agree to the establishment of a full-fledged Royal Commission of Inquiry to clear him of all the allegations ranging from murder to corruption haunting and hounding him, I would expect him to make a fulsome statement in Parliament on all these allegations when he speaks in the Dewan Rakyat for the first time as Finance Minister and Prime Minister-in-waiting on Tuesday (November 4) during the government reply on the 2009 Budget debate, when he is to announce the government strategy for the country for the global financial meltdown and the world’s worst economic crisis in 80 years.

Razak Baginda’s “exculpatory statements” -

- Even though I had appointed P. Balasubramaniam, the harassment by Altantuya against my family and I did not stop. Hence, I asked DSP Musa Safri for help. I know Musa from my business dealings at the Malaysian Strategic Research Centre, a non-profit organisation.

- I asked DSP Musa for help to install a police beat box at my house and increase patrols in the area. I also sought help to be introduced to a police officer from the Brickfields police station as my house was under their jurisdiction.

- DSP Musa told me that he would introduce me to an officer who would help me.

- On Oct 26, 2006, in a meeting with Balasubramaniam and Dhiren Norendra (a lawyer), Balasubramaniam advised me to lodge a report to deport the deceased (Altantuya) from Malaysia. Dhiren and I refused.

- On Oct 17, 2006, the deceased came to my house and wanted to meet me. I was not at home at that time, and my wife learnt of her visit.

- On the night of Oct 17, 2006, I was at home with my family and there was a commotion outside the house.

- I called DSP Musa’s handphone but I could not get through. So I called Balasubramaniam and Dhiren to help me. As a result, a police patrol car arrived to settle the matter. I did not lodge a police report and Dhiren never advised me to do so.

- DSP Musa later called me and said that a police officer would call me to help me sort out my problem with the deceased. According to DSP Musa, the officer who would be calling me was the Brickfields district Criminal Investigation Department chief.

- On the morning of Oct 18, 2006, Azilah Hadri called me and introduced himself as the police officer who was referred by DSP Musa to help me with the harassment by the deceased.

- I subsequently met with Azilah at my office. I told him that the deceased had caused a commotion at my house, and asked him to conduct patrols around my house. I gave him my house address, my father’s name, the deceased’s name, “Hotel Malaya”, and where she stayed, based on the information given to me by Balasubramaniam. I also told Azilah that I had engaged Balasubramaniam and gave him his name and number. Before he left my office, Azilah asked me to contact him if she harassed my family and me again.

- On Oct 19, 2006, Balasubramaniam called me and told me that there was a commotion outside my house. I was out with my family at that time to break fast. So I called Azilah for help.

- Balasubramaniam told me that three plainclothes police officers came to my house in an unmarked car to take the deceased away. I believed they had taken her to the police station for interrogation.

- On Oct 20, 2006, I went to the deputy prime minister’s office for official duties and bumped into DSP Musa. I asked him what happened the night before and DSP Musa told me Azilah did not tell him anything. Several days later, I asked DSP Musa about the deceased, but his answer remained the same.

ShareThis

23 Responses to “Even more imperative Najib submit himself to RCI to clear him of all allegations from murder to corruption”

Syed Hamid’s Interview With The Star Online

Published: Wednesday October 22, 2008 MYT 2:48:00 PM

Updated: Wednesday October 22, 2008 MYT 8:31:28 PM

Syed Hamid’s interview with The Star Online

KUALA LUMPUR: Home Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar talks toThe Star Online and mStar Online on current issues, including arrests under the Internal Security Act (ISA), the banning of the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf), race relations, racial politics and the role of the media (both print and online).

In this first of two parts of the interview, Syed Hamid says that the imposition of the ISA is not something he takes lightly. He also talks about the need for Malaysians to take pride in their diversity and promote shared values.

This is an excerpt of the interview-  from the Star Online.
ON THE ISA
The Star Online: Datuk Seri, there are a few issues we would like to address. The two main ones are the ISA and the banning of Hindraf.

Syed Hamid: There are two things that I am guided by in life. The first is to make sure I act justly and the second fairly. It is not easy to detain a person eventhough you’re acting legally because the law gives you that power. That power is not a privilege, it is a responsibility which I consider to be very heavy.

Everyone is discussing now how the ISA is outdated and not timely but we tend to forget the history behind it all. It is like what I always say – to build it takes time, you need the engineers, you need the architects and you need the contractors to build according to specifications. But when you want to destroy, it only takes minutes. The whole thing would crumble.

(It is about) ensuring law and order, peace and security, and comfort to the public. And we must ensure we are not guided by a need to be popular but by public interest. But people say what right have you got to decide what is a threat? Let the public decide. Let them determine it themselves. I think it’s a question of whether you want to govern or want to surrender governing. You must ensure that there is good governance, subject to public scrutiny, public debate and discussion.

Under public discussion, the discourse must give both sides an opportunity to be heard. But if there is a judgemental issue, where it is already concluded that certain things are wrong, then we would be hard pressed. We would become defensive in areas where we are given the responsibility, where we take action because we believe that it is the right course of action.

That’s how I look at all the things that we do — the bottom line is public interest, which is equal to maintaining public order, maintaining security and understanding perceptions and threats. If we are wrong, then the court can decide that we are wrong. But meanwhile, we cannot wait for things to happen in order for us to take action.

I’m actually very worried. I would not like to curtail freedom, people’s liberal thinking, but we must know where the demarcations are.

THE USE OF THE ISA
Syed Hamid: There are two parts to the ISA, one is operational and the other is detention. The operational part is another form of remand, which the police are allowed (to use) under the law. This operational part is considered routine police work, which no Home Minister should know anyway. I should not know, it’s operational field work. Even the IGP (Inspector General of Police), he delegates the function to his officers, then he gets the total information. In my case, I’m a policy maker looking at the macro situation. If there is a public interest matter, I will look into it.

There is a case where Section 73 was interpreted by the Federal Court. I think Karam Singh v PP, where the court decided the police have the right to arrest under ISA even on the basis of suspicion. The one in Johor (the arrest of the Johor Suaram secretary under Section 28 of the ISA recently), it is suspicion.

Again, everyone, even the Canadian Embassy asked me. When I was first asked that question (about the arrest), I said I do not know. Truly I did not know. Because in this particular case, for the police, how do you deal with people who allegedly reported falsely? The police take action accordingly. You have to go to court anyway (under Section 28 of the ISA). You have to charge the person in court. So, it’s not excluding due process. Even under Section 73, you can file a habeas corpus (application). Due process is there.

Even under detention by the Minister, the due process is that you can still bring habeas corpus in order to determine whether the grounds (cited) by the Minister is correct. If the court is not satisfied, it will release the person.

The other part that people seldom discuss is that after three months from the time of the arrest, there is an advisory panel in which the Home Minister cannot be involved – to advise whether the person should continue to be detained. After that, every six months, it (the order) is subject to review — to see whether the person’s detention should be continued or not.

So, I think there are protective measures. But it’s always difficult, when you’re using preventive laws. It is not easy. When I do it, I have to search my conscience to make sure I do not do injustice.

There are various types of NGOs. Sometimes, a one-member NGO acts like it represents a 100,000. I think there is different thinking also among the urban population and the intellectuals and families and the media. How do you create that balance to ensure that everybody feels safe?

People say there will come a time when there should be a total abolition of the ISA and preventive laws. Then, you do it at that time. But at present, we believe the majority of the people feel that there is a need for preventive laws.

PEACE IN MALAYSIA
Syed Hamid: When other law enforcement agencies come here, they say ‘you’re lucky to have the ISA.’ They say, ‘because of your ISA there are so many things that do not happen – the Bali bombing, extremist groups.’

But in Malaysia, we take all these for granted because everybody can go around (safely). When they are not happy, they condemn the enforcement officers, the police, Immigration, all sorts of things. This is the beauty of living in a peaceful democratic country – to be able to live comfortably. The government is sensitive to public comment, to protests, but it must be legitimate for us to respond to it.

People keep on changing their values. Do you remember at one time homosexuality in most countries was an offence. Now it is an accepted social norm — some countries now have laws that allow for same-sex marriages. The values of society change with time. Somebody in the Opposition was saying, ‘why don’t we make this homosexuality acceptable? After all people do it’. But the fact that people do it, does not make it right. The Muslims would never accept it and neither would the Christians. The majority of conventions would tell you it is not allowed.

Our society is more mature but would this create more polarisation? We have to decide. Maybe not during my generation — we might become so comfortable with each other that preventive laws are not necessary.

RACIAL POLITICS
Q: Whenever a political party is having its elections or general asemblies, there are always some politicians who use the racial card to further themselves. What is your view on this?

Syed Hamid: It will be a long time before we de-racialise our thinking. My own view is that we must accept our diversity. Barisan Nasional in its true ideal always propagated the ideal of multi-culturalism. The other parties follow this.

Opposition parties might say they practise this, but not in reality. Pakatan (Rakyat) needs to stay together in a marriage of convenience because they want to replace Barisan. But look at how they placed their candidates (in the general election), Chinese area — DAP, mixed area — PKR, Muslim area — PAS.

Q:Do you think Barisan Nasional is becoming obselete now as it is a composition of race-based parties? Is it time to have just a single party to represent all Malaysians?

Syed Hamid: I think it’ll be some time before that happens. It is more important to have a sense of cooperation and goodwill with each other. If you look at the mix of Barisan today, it is a total representation of all the country’s multi-ethnicity. But the problem is, after the last elections everyone is trying to apportion blame to the other. That’s how you create the problem.

We should have done our soul-searching. Why did people reject us? We have so much development, so much improvement for the well-being of our multi-racial society, yet people voted against us. There must be something wrong within us.

There was less intolerance in the old days. Today there are more (racial) lines. We are suddenly more conscious of these racial lines. We need to rebrand Malaysian politics and review how we go about achieving our objectives.

All of us, let’s stop the blaming and talk about how to build a Malaysian nation, then there will be a mind set change. People say the politicians destroy unity, the politicians say the newspapers destroy unity, the papers look at the Internet and what is said there is worse.

Handle issues with care. Don’t let them catch fire. If we sit as friends and talk about sensitive issues, it doesn’t create anger and animosity, we begin to understand each other’s problems. But if we discuss openly, the same subject becomes explosive. We must know the nature of our discussion. Take the May 13 issue, it had nothing to do with race. It had to do with not resolving certain economic issues.

RACE RELATIONS ACT
Syed Hamid: We are talking about the possibility of having a Race Relations Act. I was looking at all the Race Relations Acts but before we have come to any decision, somebody reads the paper and said “Is this another ISA?” So suspicious of everything.

Our country has a Constitution. Certain things are entrenched. How do we go about achieving some of those objectives? I would like to open up a public debate. At the end of it, we must allow the Government to decide what’s best, what we should do.

Q: Has the Government decided yet on the composition of the Act?

Syed Hamid: We’re still studying the Act and discussing with the Unity, Culture, Arts and Heritage Ministry. I don’t consider it as a security issue but at present, a lot of questions are being asked about law and order, and peace and security relating to the Act. Ultimately, it would be the Unity Ministry (which handles it).

We have to look at what the people want. We will take into account how it (the Act) can match with the aspirations of the people. We have not made a final decision yet. It was brought up in the Cabinet and we are discussing certain sensitive issues.

In Part 2 of the interview, Syed Hamid talks about the banning of Hindraf and the responsibility of the media and bloggers

In The Name Of Religion : Iraq’s Female Genocide

In The Name Of Religion : Iraq’s Female Genocide

• SHARE
• PRINT
• EMAIL
• TEXT SIZE
  • NORMAL
  • LARGE
  • EXTRA LARGE

‘It is difficult to describe how terrible it is – how badly we have been pushed back to the middle ages. Women are being denied their most basic rights’

• Articles
• Topics

• I spy with my little IRA: the truth about the ‘dirty’ war
• Iraq tense on Saddam execution anniversary
• Iraqi Palestinians ordered to leave under threat of death
• Concerns grow as helicopter shot down by Iraqi insurgents
• Search for peace among the ghosts of battles past
• No let up in violence as gunmen clash with US troops
• Conjoined twins separated in gruelling seven-hour operation

Also in Analysis

• Week wheels came off McCain express
• Cowen has only 24 hours to resolve over-70s card crisis
• Fiasco shows FF has lost touch with Middle Ireland
• ‘This is your bus driver speaking. We are cruising at 35,000ft over the Atlantic’
• Message from Big Three has to be loud and clear

Analysis Home

Query: Independent.ie  WebSearch

By Terri Judd in Basra, Iraq

Monday April 28 2008

Terri Judd in Basra, Iraq

At first glance Shawbo Ali Rauf appears to be slumbering on the grass, her pale brown curls framing her face, her summer skirt spread about her. But the awkward position of her limbs and the splattered blood reveal the true horror of the scene.

The 19-year-old Iraqi was murdered by her own in-laws who took her to a picnic area in Dokan and shot her seven times. Her crime was to have an unknown number on her mobile phone.

Her “honour killing” is just one in a grotesque series emerging from Iraq, where campaigners speak of a “genocide” against women in the name of religion.

In the latest such case, last month, a 17-year-old girl, Rand Abdel-Qader, was stabbed to death by her father for becoming infatuated with a British soldier serving in southern Iraq.

In Basra alone, police acknowledge that 15 women a month are murdered for breaching Islamic dress codes. Campaigners insist it is a conservative figure.

Violence against women is rampant, rising every day with the power of the militias. Beheadings, rapes, beatings, suicides through self-immolation, genital mutilation, trafficking and child abuse masquerading as marriage of girls as young as nine are all on the increase.

Du’a Khalil Aswad, a 17-year-old from Nineveh, was executed by stoning in front of a mob of 2,000 men for falling in love with a boy outside her Yazidi tribe. Mobile-phone images of her broken body transmitted on the internet led to sectarian violence, international outrage and calls for reform. Her father, Khalil Aswad, speaking one year after her death in April last year, has revealed that none of those responsible had been prosecuted and his family remained “outcasts” in their own tribe.

“My daughter did nothing wrong,” he said. “She fell in love with a Muslim and there is nothing wrong with that. I couldn’t protect her because I got threats from my brother, the whole tribe. They insisted they were going to kill us all, not only Du’a, if she was not killed. She was mutilated, her body dumped like rubbish.”

Despite the outrage, recent calls by the Kurdish MP Narmin Osman to outlaw honour killings have been blocked by fundamentalists. “Honour killings are not actually a crime in the eyes of the government,” said Houzan Mahmoud, who has had a fatwa on her head since raising a petition against the introduction of Sharia law in Kurdistan.

“In the past five years it is has got [much] worse. It is difficult to describe how terrible it is, how badly we have been pushed back to the dark ages. Women are being beheaded for taking their veil off. Self-immolation is rising; women are left with no choice.

“There is no government body or institution to provide any sort of support. Sharia law is being used to underpin government rule, denying women their most basic human rights.”

In August last year, the body of 11-year-old Sara Jaffar Nimat was found in Khanaqin, Kurdistan, after she had been stoned and burnt to death. Earlier this month, two brothers and a sister were kidnapped from their home near Kirkuk by gunmen in police uniforms. The brothers were beaten to death and the woman left in a critical condition after being informed that she must obey the rules of an “Islamic state”.

Only days ago, a journalist, Begard Huseein, was murdered in her home in Erbil, northern Iraq. Her husband, Mohammed Mustafa, stabbed her because she was in love with another man, according to local reports.

The stoning death of Ms Aswad led to the establishment of an internal ministry unit in Kurdistan to combat violence against women. It reported that last year in Sulaimaniya, a city of a million people, there were 407 reported offences, beheadings, beatings, deaths through “family problems”, and threats of honour killings.

Rape is not included as most women are too fearful to report it for fear of retribution. Nevertheless, police in Karbala recently revealed 25 reports of rape.

The new Iraqi constitution, according to Mrs Mahmoud, is a mass of confusing contradictions. While it states that men and women are equal under law it also decrees that Sharia law — which considers one male witness worth two females — must be observed. The days when women could hold down key jobs or enjoy any freedom of movement are long gone. The fundamentalists have sent out too many chilling messages.

“Honour killings and murder are widespread,” said Mrs Mahmoud.

“Thousands [of people]… have become victims of murder, violence and rape — all backed by laws, tribal customs and religious rules. We urge the international community, the government, to condemn this barbaric practice, and help the women of Iraq.” (© Independent News Service)

Governance, Transparency and Accountability in Malaysia

 

From : click adjacent :

Malaysian Insider – Sarah Palin pre-empts State Report, Clears Self In Probe

ANCHORAGE, Oct 10 – Trying to head off a potentially embarrassing state ethics report on Republican vice presidential nominee, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, campaign officials released their own report Thursday that clears her of any wrongdoing.

Senator John McCain’s running mate is the subject of a legislative investigation into whether she abused her power as governor by firing her public safety commissioner. The commissioner, Walter Monegan, says he was dismissed in July for resisting pressure from Palin’s husband, Todd Palin, and numerous top aides to fire state police officer Mike Wooten, Palin’s former brother-in-law.

Lawmakers are expected to release their own findings Friday. Campaign officials for McCain and Palin have yet to see that report — the result of an investigation that began before she was tapped as McCain’s running mate — but said the investigation has falsely portrayed a legitimate policy dispute between a governor and her commissioner as something inappropriate.

McCain spokesman Taylor Griffin, who distributed the campaign’s report, said it was written by the McCain-Palin campaign staff and based on public filings and Todd Palin’s affidavit given to Alaska lawmakers in their investigation.

“The following document will prove Walt Monegan’s dismissal was a result of his insubordination and budgetary clashes with Governor Palin and her administration,” campaign officials wrote. “Trooper Wooten is a separate issue.”

Monegan said Thursday that he doesn’t know what to expect from the legislative panel’s own report.

“I just hope that the truth is figured out,” Monegan told The Associated Press on Thursday. “You just can’t walk up to someone and say, ’I fire you.’ He didn’t do anything under my watch to result in termination.”

Palin’s critics say she used her office to settle family affairs.

“When you’re the governor, you leave your household hat at home and you become governor,” said state Senate President Lyda Green, a Republican who has frequently clashed with Palin.

The McCain-Palin campaign’s report instead blames former campaign opponent, Andrew Halcro, who has a blog, of conspiring with Wooten to pin Monegan’s dismissal on the family’s dispute with Wooten. Three days after Monegan was fired, they say, Wooten told his ex-wife, Palin’s sister, that: “You guys are going down. Get ready for the show.”

Two days after that confrontation, they say, Halcro and Wooten met at a hotel bar in Anchorage for more than three hours — and that evening, Halcro posted the first accusations on his blog that Monegan had been fired because of a vendetta against Wooten by the Palin family.

“It is tragic that a false story hatched by a blogger after drinks with Trooper Wooten led the legislature to allocate over US$100,000 of public money to be spent in what has become a politically driven investigation,” the 21-page report concludes.

Although the report describes Wooten as a separate issue, the McCain campaign goes into great detail about the “rogue” state police officer and his “long history of unstable and erratic behavior.” The campaign describes allegations of violence, including threatening Palin’s family and shooting his stepson with a stun gun.

The report also includes allegations that Wooten cheated the workers’ compensation system. Todd Palin has said he had numerous conversations with government officials about why Wooten was allowed to stay on the job. But Todd Palin said he never pressured anyone, including his wife.

The McCain campaign says the investigation has become “muddied with innuendo, rumour and partisan politics.” – AP

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!