Actions Speak Louder Than Words.

But I guess in a case of United States of America and Israeli, it ought to be like this..

"Words speak louder than actions". o.O ?? err..

U.S and International Prosecutions

Isn't it funny when one of the country that strongly uphold human rights, at the same time strongly opposed to ratified the Rome Statute. In other words, they won't accept the International Criminal Court's jurisdiction to be taken towards their citizens when ever it is involved with the international crimes.

From the very first beginning, they had disagree to ratified under Rome Statute. It only takes a while for them to sign in 2000 before they unsigned it back under Bush administration in 2002. In fact, they even threatened to use the their military power if any of their citizens were brought to the ICC by signed into law the American Service-Members' Protection Act (ASPA) as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act. It means that the president has been given an authorization to use by all means to release any of their nationals or allied which being held at Hague. Well, it does gave a pressure to the countries in the region. But why?

White House loudly speaks, strongly suggest and gave their full support for rushing referral of Muammar Al-Gaddafi to the International Criminal Court to be prosecute, yet they themselves who are the one that strongly opposed to ratified for it. *sigh*

Nuclear Free Zone

A poll of Israeli Jews found out that 64 percents of them preferred for the Middle East to establish a nuclear free zone, by means that Israeli itself needs to give up on their nuclear weapon. Well, personally I would consider it as 'day dream'. Obviously, their government won't do that.

However, Israeli was the one who firm with their decision to prevent Iran from acquired any nuclear technology. They did not come up with a single evidence of nuclear weapon acquired by Iran. Israeli who the one that possesses nuclear weapon, Iran possesses nuclear technology used for their development, yet Israeli who keep talking about 'nuclear free zone'?? Are they qualified to speak out?

When the International Atomic Energy Agency publised a report on the Tehran's nuclear program , stating that Iran's activities are military in nature, hundreds of Iranian students formed a human chain of defensive belt around of the Islamic republic's nuclear sites, defending their nuclear site. Why? Well, they did so since Israeli officially considering a military action towards Iran.

How You Define It ?

Some matters are too subjective to have its exact definition. Take a simple example, the word 'beautiful'. Yes, it is undeniable that the definition of beautiful has been stated in a dictionary, despite with that, when it comes to a particular perception you will have a different meaning, understanding and aspects that has been taken into account.

"for me..she's beautiful if she is tall, have a blue eyes..bla bla bla"

"i would say that a girl who are able to play guitar is considered as beautiful"

Here is the reason of why some matters like this has been given just a general definition.

Because there are too many aspects that need to consider

For you, someone who are able to play drum and guitar are beautiful but for some other guys, they might define a smart girls as beautiful. It's a matter of personal perceptions though.

Am I going to type about this? Beauty? No, of course not. As a matter of facts, it is about 'terrorism'.

So, lets take an eyes onto the definition of terrorism given by Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

"terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against person or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives"

Since they are the one who listed out the names of terrorists, so they are the one who define what is terrorism. The funny thing is, they (America) is the terrorist themselves. Well, this is just a personal thoughts and views. Why?

Its better to look back at their own definition before I define themselves as terrorist right?

Based on what aspects?

1. "unlawful use of violence"

The word unlawful can be considered as 'no right', 'no legal declaration', 'no authority' and so forth that are based on the 'law'. Do you know that the action taken by the President of United States of America in regards with the military action towards Libya was unlawful? Because he actually failed to get an approval from the right authority, the Congress.

Section 8 of Article 1 of United States Constitution states that;

"The Congress shall have power to.....declare war..."

To declare war, President shall get an approval from The Congress. Did he? No, not at all. Micheal Dorf, a constitutional law expert and professor of law at Cornell University said that this action (military action towards Libya by United States of America) is considered as unconstitutional.

Well, that fulfilled the first aspect of what is terrorism.

2. "to intimidate or coerce government or civilian population, in furtherance of political or social objectives"

Iran, Afghanistan, Libya and many more. They killed hundred thousands of them. What is the common thing between all these three countries ? What are the benefits that they will gain by doing so towards these countries?

On its surface, the purpose of attacking Libya is in order to keep Moammar from continuing his attacks on civilians in defiance on international demands. But truth to be told, it is to about political control and oil. Libya has the largest oil reserves in Africa. Isn't a very good reason? To protect? Then, what the hell with all the killing of Libyan's civilians? Come on guys, you are not that idiot to deny their true objectives.

The funny part is, they gave the their usual excuses of killing those civilians. Wrong hit target ? Thousands of them died and they claimed a 'wrong hit' ??

I guess it is a clear cut to show that the words or the elements of intimidate and coerce had already been fulfilled.

"when the power of love overcome the love of power, the world will know peace" ~ Jimi Hendrix.

Financial Laws and Money Management : Crisis

Peace be upon you, brothers and sisters of my muslim relatives.

As I read about this news, I would like to point out some comments pertaining to this matter. A short one.

Today, on 17th of April, Senator Tom Coburn and Senator Carl Levin recommend an additional changes upon their financial laws of United States of America. As we all know that fraudulent mortgage is reported as one of among the findings.

Their recommendation is made following with the question on the report regards with the causes of financial crisis in 2008. Yeah, they ought made some changes. Seriously.

In 1999, there were a lot of a these kind of crimes. Fraud. They actually obtained the money by deceiving a particular party or a bank. Maybe some sort of exaggerated words or informations in order to get a larger loan. Simple way to say that is like when you say that your mom is somebody, then it won't be a problem for you to pay back the money. In United States Federal court, mortgage fraud is prosecuted as mail fraud, money laundering and etc. This is also one of the reason which triggered to a financial crisis. One of the example which involving money laundering is regards with the action of Credit Suisse, as they had laundered the money for Iran nuclear program. Crimes in financial industry is something in common to say. What to expect ? It's all about money right.

Before I give some explanation why this practice leads to a financial crisis in United States of America, well basically leads to global financial crisis, I would like to point out one important case which is correlated with fraudulent mortgage.

In 2006, 15 defendants were indicted on 79 counts of bank loan fraud, conspiracy, money laundering and so on, as it is correlated with the mortgage fraudulent that targeted the metro-Atlanta area housing market. This case has led to an involvement from Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Department of Housing and Urban Development. Obviously, it is a serious case.

Now, let me demonstrates to you in a very simple way to show and illustrates to you how this led to financial global crisis.I don't even think this would required you to think out of the box as it is a simple things to think.

What is the consequences when you lend a money to a someone who obviously won't be able to repay ?

Imagine like this..

A = a person who borrow your money

B = your friend /campus-mate who is selling maggi, coca-cola, books and etc to you as you are his or her regular customer and most of his or her income is actually coming from you.

C= assistant for B a.k.a B's roommate.

Here we go, A, who wanted to borrow RM1, 000 out of Rm 1, 250 from your allowance. *also imagine that you are a foundation student like me*. A higher debt means a higher rates of interest right ? Logic. But what if the loan were given to someone who cannot pay you back ? Nahh..here you go. A financial crisis. You can't spend more. You have to really really really limit your budget on the other things. Shoes, clothes, books, foods and so on. Does this merely affects you alone ? Totally not. The income for B would be slightly decrease due to lack of demand from you.

In a mean time, C, who acts as an assistant for B, who usually facing some difficulties to handle his business as before, there is a lot of demands made from you. Now, B have to lessen his products. Do you need a hand when there isn't much things to handle around ? So, B have to fire C from his current job.

Can you picture that ?

Now, imagine that you as a main bank which indirectly represents economy of United States of America, A as your citizens, and B as another country, while C as B's citizens. Simple isn't it.

Well, basically, mortgage fraudulent is happening when a particular person getting a large amount of loan by deceiving. He lies about his current income. He claimed that he is a boss of nonexistent company and so forth when actually the amount of money borrowed is far beyond his capability.

There is another reason which triggered a financial crisis which actually played the same concepts. The different things is, mortgage fraud is a crime, yet this is a legal matter in the eyes of law.

"Subprime"

This is what the investment bank did in 1999 if I'm not mistaken. They actually preferring subprime loan, as they carry a higher interest rates and this has led to a massive increase in predatory lending. This kind of subprime means give a loans to people who may have difficulties maintaining the repayment schedule. In large amount. One of the risks that the banks have to face is that, there is none of the possession of property assets that could be used or acts as a guarantee or security.

To tell exactly the reasons behind the economic crisis in 2008, there are many things to point out. The reasons on how the banks in Iceland losses 100 billion, while their cross domestic products was only 13 billion. Seriously, many things to say about the reasons. Despite that, there are one last thing that I would like to put forward. This thing is also one of the reason of the global financial crisiss. Mean while, this is what they, the world financial experts prefer for.

What is that ?

Deregulation. It means to remove a national or local government from the controls or rules in business or in any other activity. This is what experts trying to do. Leave all the jobs which pertaining to financial to them *experts*. No interference from the government. In 2000, Iceland made a deregulation. What is the impact ? A lot. Financial and environment. This guy took the risk using the public money. Make an investment on something which in need of larger amount of money. Build some sort of project and causes a pollutions.

In our modern days. Especially in Islamic country like us. They are trying to separate any religious things onto a matter of handling our money. "Leave the job to experts."

That's all from me. Feel free to drop any comments or arguments. *If there's any*

Peace be upon you muslim readers, and adios guys.

^^

The Death Penalty.

Bismilahirahmanirrahim..in the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.

I greet you all my brothers and sisters of my muslim relatives with the Islamic greeting of peace. Assalamualaikum wbt.

Alright. In this entry I would like to argue and discuss about the death penalty not about the United Nations. Why I put that picture ? Well, read for further, then you will know.

"Why do you want to talk about this?"

Well, obviously it is one of our current issue right now. In facts, it is considered as one of the most hot topic which is being brought into an arena of debate. A world debate. Since 18th of December 2007, the United Nation actually was already proposed a resolution 62/149. This moratorium is regards with the abolishment of the use of the death penalty. Yup, they are trying to abolish the term of the 'death penalty' from any of the dictionaries of punishment. Actually I already post an entry which is pertaining to this entry entitled resolution 62/149 on 16th of November 2010. Click to that link for a further information about this resolution.

"Reason(s) of abolishment?"

They stand by their argument put forward by saying that the death punishment is correlated with our human rights. They used the term of 'violations of human right'.

Note: I'm afraid some of you will get confuse with the word 'they'. Here I am referring 'they' to the United Nations.

In Article 3 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. I bold the world 'right to life'.

Yes, they stand their argument with this article. They considering that the used of the death penalty undermines human dignity, and convinced that their resolution will lead to the enhancement and progressive development of human rights. At the same time they said that there is no conclusive evidence of the deterrent value of this penalty and that any miscarriage or failure of justice in the implementation of the death penalty is irreversible and irreparable.

Last year, in 2010 we could see Mongolia declared this moratorium and Gabon became the 16th African Union member country to abolish this kind of practice. Notice the words 'irreversible and irreparable' in the above paragraph? Well, they are trying to demonstrate these words with this video.

Enough said from their sides of arguments, and this is what I'm afraid of. I'm afraid if Malaysia also put the same action as what the Mongolia and Gabon did.

"Why ?"

First and foremost, i made my stand by saying that I am totally opposed this resolution because of the word "..world is free of the death penalty.." in which it is quoted by Shetty.

"Critically, define this sentence"

Simple, no more death penalty. Not even for a murders, rapes, terrorisms and etc. You name it, and it's mean, no death penalty at all. Now I would like to put a simple question. If they said that death penalty is a violence to what so called as right to life of Article 3 in Universal Declaration of Human Right, then what do you call that when a person being murdered by another person, and that murder is only sentence to imprisonment for five years, back then he's going back to his world of crime, murder, imprisonment, again and again ?

Ever heard the word of justice ?

Justice according to Ross, is the correct application of a law, as opposed to arbitrariness by making decision based on rule and law of evidence and trial, not by mere personal suspicion or opinion.

I would like to stress on the words 'the correct application of a law'. Yes, I agree that on a certain parts of a crime, the death penalty is not a right practice. I said, on a certain, Not all. That is why I stress on the words the correct application of a law. Because a murder deserved a death sentence. If you have already watched the video, here is my argument. Because of the system itself. First, listen carefully and you would hear the word jury.

"Who is jury ?"

A jury is a group of people, usually consists of 12 people who judge a court case. Members of jury are ordinary members of the public. Do they qualified and deserved to decide a case ?They are vulnerable in which their actions are easy to get affected by their feelings, not by their professional points of view based on laws and evidences.

I would like you to watch this video.

Stress on this part..

"...How misguided are you. I feed you with a couple of bullshit legal precedents and there you go. You jump on it (conclusion)..."

Imagine, even a judge could made a mistake, how about a jury ? I'm not put 100 percents blame on the jury, but on the system itself.

That is why they shouldn't put their arguments upon the death penalty. Because sometimes, even a smaller punishment, they might putting a false sentence. Then, you would say that we should abolished all the punishments to avoid any mistake ?

Next, this is Malaysia. An Islamic country. Treating a murders with a death sentence is something known as equality.

"O you who believe! Al-Qisas (the law of equality in punishment) is prescribed for you in case of murder: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, and the female for the female. But if the killer is forgiven by the brother (or the relatives, etc) of the killed against blood money, then adhering to it with fairness and payment of the blood money, to the heir should be made in fairness. This is an alleviation and a mercy from your lord. So after this whoever transgress the limits (i.e kills the killer after taking the blood money), he shall have a painful torment."

(Al-Baqara, verse 178).

Before this I already post an entry on 30th of October 2010, which is correlated with this verse. An entry entitle the law of equality in punishment. In this entry also, I already states that Malaysia does not sign the convention of the Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which providing to the right to life, including repeal the death penalty.

"In the law of equality there is (saving of) life to you O ye man of understanding! that ye may restrain yourselves. " (Al-Baqara, verse 179)

The enforcement of the Qisas is to ensure that the lives of other people is awake due to the fact that if those who understand will know that when they killed, they will be killed or sentence to death and thus he will not commit a murder.

note: I don't think I have to explain that on what circumstances did the death penalty is put upon a murder. I mean, for instance if you are accidentally killed a person in order to protect yourself, you are not going to put into a death sentence.

To strengthened my argument, we must understand that 'treat like cases alike' and 'treat different cases differently' as proposed and stated in the Book entitled "The Concept of Law" written by H.L.A Hart.

Last but not least, I would like to summarize my arguments into 4 points.

1. The death penalty should be abolish on a certain classification of crimes and not the entire and all types of crimes, as due to its degree of seriousness, the concept of equality and justice.

2. Malaysia does not sign the the convention of the Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which providing to the right to life, including repeal the death penalty, and thus Malaysia does not have to abolish it.

3. Malaysia is an Islamic country, so Qisas should be apply and no doubt about it as it is the law transcended by Allah and we should abide by it.

4. A mistake shouldn't be put towards the practice of the death penalty, but it should be put on the system and the body of authority and human error who does not treat the cases carefully who does not put the death penalty onto the right place and the right crimes.

Thank you. Asslamualaikum.. (^_^)

Approbation.

Bismillahirahmanirahim.

Assalamualaikum wbt.

I remember someone said to me before about Barack Obama will remove the military, thier troops in Iraq. But I replied by saying that "If I'm not mistaken, he (President of USA) needs to get an approval from the congress regarding this matter."

About removing..I'm not so sure. BUT, when it is regards to a military action, I mean, in simple English they called as a "Declaration of War", yes, this Mr. President need to get an approval or approbation from the congress.

oh yeah, before that. I'm talking about the system in America and not in Malaysia. So, this Mr. President represents one body and congress represents the other body. Some might question because they thought the system in America is same as the system in Malaysia. Yup, Malaysia and America both used the doctrine of 'separation of powers' but to be specific, America used the doctrine of 'strict separation of powers'. It means that a person may not be a member of other organs if he or she belongs to the other organ.

"huh ? What organ ? Did you mean this organ"

"Or...."

Of course not. What I mean is the body of authority.

Section 6 of article 1 in the United States Constitution provides that no person holding office under the US may be a member of congress. On the other words, Mr president are not a member of the congress.

Their part of the job is separated and so do their role.

Article 1 of United States Constitution also provides that all legislative power herein granted shall be vested in a congress and article 2 provides that the executive power shall be vested in a President of United States of America. Thus, this is clearly shows that in enforcing or executing an action, it must be regards with the approval from the congress. Done for the introduction.

"so, what's up with congress and all of this approval stuff? "

Like I mentioned before, the president need a declaration of war from the congress. If he wanted to enforce a military action, he (President) need to get a formal agreement from the congress. As has been stated in section 8 of article 1 in United States Constitution, in which these are among the power vested towards the congress;

"...to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water....to raise and support armies....to provide and maintain a navy..."

If you read about my post entitle world's biggest crisis, you will notice about our current news which regards to a military action by United States of America towards Libya. Yes, about that, well, Mr. President actually failed to get an approval from the congress to take that action.

Micheal Dorf, a constitutional law expert and professor of law at Cornell University said that this action (military action towards Libya by United States of America) is considered as unconstitutional.

"The U.S military had no king. Unilateral choice of President Barack Obama to use U.S military forces in Libya is an insult to our constitution." Quoted Congressman Roscoe Bartlett.

ok, that's all from me. Thanks for reading. :)

"Society...has confirmed the role as president as chief legislator, but has not equipped the president to perform it with the reliability that British prime minister typically enjoy" ~ Bowles

World's Biggest Crisis!

If you go and do some research on the internet, you would probably won't find any terms of 'war' as one of the biggest problem or crisis in the world. Trust me, I dare you to do so and what you could find is all about education, water, poverty and etc. In my points of view, there are two reasons for this;

1. Education, water and etc problem is actually killing more people than what is so called as 'war'. Tsunami killed over a millions of people in 2006 and recently in japan, it killed over hundred of thousands of people.

"what about education?". Well, an estimated of 101 million children are not in school in which more than half of them are girls. I know, at the end of the day, all of these girls will end up being either a part time or a full time chef at home. :P

Just kidding. Ok, lets get back to business, actually they are being denied for their basic human rights to education. Its hard to survive without education in our modern day right now.

"well, how about water? 70 percents of the earth are covered by water, so?". You've got a point there, but did they have not need to pay for the bills ?

"Because of that?" Of course not, what i mean is clean water. More than one out of six people have lack access to safe drinking water. 1.8 million people die every year from diarrhoel disease and 3900 children die every single day from water borne disease.

2. Because the terms 'war' is actually (for me) referred to the terms 'conflict' rather than refer it to the terms 'crisis'.

"If you say so, then what the hell with your title of your entry?"

Before I make my conclusion and gives you my answer, lets warm our brain up. To be a critical thinkers, one must not find the answer straight away, yet he or she should look for the reasons and application. Then you will understand the whole theory. Lets start with our world international issue in which it is correlated with the terms 'war'.

Yesterday, western forces hits targets along the Libyan coast by using strikes from the sea and from the air in order to force Muammar Gaddafi's troops to cease fire and end attacks on civilians. Later, an hour later in which by this morning on 20th of March 2011, United States of America and Britain warships and submarines 110 Tomahawk missiles against air defences around the capital Tripoli.

They attacks Libyan in order to stop that country from killing the Libyans' civilians, ironically, they also causes 48 of the civilians killed and another 150 injured. These leaders from USA, Britain, France, Canada and Italy had reached the consensus to take a military actions upon Libya after the claim that Gaddafi broke his pledge of a ceasefire overnight. This operation is called Operation Odyssey Dawn. This is parallel to enforced the United Nation's resolution.

This resolution was made to save the civilians (but at the same time causes a death and injury to them) and to counter attack this, Muammar Gaddafi said that he will use his civilians.

"now need to open all the buildings and provide the people with guns, with all kinds of weapons, to defend the independence, unity and dignity of Libya" ~ Quoted Muammar Gaddafi in his speech a few hours after the attack.

If you really think deeply about this particular thing, it is actually pertaining to something which we called as "Humanity Crisis". Yup, this war conflict is indirectly related to the "humanity crisis, lack of understanding". This can be said as the biggest crisis and problem right now. It is a field broad scope, humanity involving in our daily life, humanity in executing or enforcing a law and so on. But in this entry, I narrow it down into this particular terms...

"War: Lead To Lack of Humanity's Understanding Crisis"

You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for the war ~ Albert Einstein.

Know Your Rights!

Resolution 62/149

Resolution 62/149 - Moratorium on the use of death penalty. This resolution was proposed by the United Nations in order to abolish all of the use of death penalty. It means, no more death penalty for every type of criminal offense.

In the moratorium, it states about five important agendas, as such as;

1. Expresses its deep concern about the continued application of the death penalty;

2. Calls upon all States that still maintain the death penalty to:

(a) Respect international standards that provide safeguards guaranteeing the protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty, in particular the minimum standards, as set out in the annex to Economic and Social Council resolution 1984/50 of 25 May 1984;

(b) Provide the Secretary-General with information relating to the use of capital punishment and the observance of the safeguards guaranteeing the protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty;

(c) Progressively restrict the use of the death penalty and reduce the number of offences for which it may be imposed;

(d) Establish a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty;

3. Calls upon States which have abolished the death penalty not to reintroduce it;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its sixty-third session on the implementation of the present resolution;

5. Decides to continue consideration of the matter at its sixty-third session under the same agenda item


Actually in December 18th, 2007, UN human rights council has proposed a resolution 62/149 concerning the moratorium on the death penalty which has been enforced by the UN in the countries that still practice death punishment, including Malaysia, which also has been asked to abolish the use of the death penalty.

In my past entry about the bribery crime, i did mention about my support towards the death penalty for the bribery case. Yet, the United Nations has been proposed to abolish the death penalty. However, we have to remember that, Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights UN made it clear that the right to life, including repeal the death penalty. Unfortunately, Malaysia does not sign this convention.

If Malaysia truly is an Islamic country, then we should have enforced 'hudud', 'qisas' and etc. Again in my past entry, i already mention about al-qisas (the law of equality in punishment).

Liberation of The Stiver of Democracy

This new entry is solely is about Aung San Suu Kyi, the striver of democracy for Burma. As you know that on 13th of November 2010, she was released after almost 15 years out of 21 years from 1990. Frankly say that, release as a prisoner in her own home.

Who is Aung San Suu Kyi ?

Aung San Suu Kyi is a daughter of late Aung San, former of commander of the Burma Independence Army, and late Daw Khin Kyi, former senior nurse of Rangoon General Hospital. She is also a former National League for Democracy party and a achiever of a;

1. Rafto Human Right Prize in October 12th, 1990
2. Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought by European Parliament
3. Peace Price by Norwegian Nobel Committee in October 14th, 1991
4. Jawaharlal Nehru Award for International Understanding by the Government of India
5. International Simon Bolivar Prize by the Government of Venezuela

How did she been placed under house arrest ?

In September 24th, 1988, National League for Democracy was formed with Aung San Suu Kyi was the general-secretary. Their policy is non-violence and civil disobedience. Suu Kyi makes speech-making tour throughout country to large audiences in defying ban of more than four persons by the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC). SLORC was established by the military in September 18th, 1988.

Since that Suu Kyi was still continuing her campaign from January until July, despite harassment, arrests and killings by soldiers, Suu Kyi was prohibited from the election in February 17th, 1989. April 5th, 1989 was the climax towards her detention in her own home where Suu Kyi courageously walks toward rifles soldiers which aiming at her and by July 20th of the same year, she was placed under house arrest, without charge or trial. At November 13th , 2010, she was released.

"Malaysia yakin bahawa pembebasan tanpa bersyarat ke atas Aung San Suu Kyi akan meyumbang kepada usaha Burma untuk melakukan proses penyatuan yang akan memberi laluan kepada kestabilan, keamanan dan kemakmuran di dalam negara itu" kata Wisma Putra.
~Bernama

"Malaysia believes that the unconditional release of Aung San Suu Kyi of Burma will contribute to efforts to make the process of consolidation that will give way to stability, peace and prosperity in the country," quoted Wisma Putra.
~Bernama

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard" ~ H.L. Mencken