From: William Gladys <william.gladys@tiscali.co.uk>
Date: Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 8:13 PM
Subject: Fw: hizb.org.uk | Full Site
To: world_Politics@googlegroups.com
Cc: Al-Hilal <Al-Hilal@sky.com>
hizb.org.uk | Full Site |
- Balancing parking tickets against murders
- Two members of Hizb ut-Tahrir matryed by the butchers of Karimov and NATO
- Video: Osman Bakhach (Hizb ut-Tahrir) and others discuss Yemen unrest 2011
- China: Rising Dragon or paper Tiger
- An Islamic Constitution for Egypt
- Weekly Circle: Lessons from the recent uprisings in the Middle East
| Balancing parking tickets against murders Posted: 15 Feb 2011 02:34 PM PST For the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, a parking ticket violation is more atrocious than a murder. As a junior senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton wanted to revoke the diplomatic immunity for scofflaw diplomats who were stationed at the United Nations in New York and had racked up $21.3 million in parking violations. As the Secretary of State, however, she is invoking diplomatic immunity for Mr. Raymond Davis, who is accused of murdering two young men in Lahore. It is hard to understand Mrs. Clinton's logic who on one hand was not willing to excuse foreign diplomats accused of parking violations in New York. "The flagrant disregard for parking regulations has had serious ramification for the safety and quality of life for New Yorkers," she argued in a letter in 2002. On the other hand, she would like an American contract worker, who claims to be a diplomat, to be granted immunity from prosecution for murdering two youths. In 2004, Mrs. Clinton and the senior senator from New York, Charles Schumer, presented a Bill that advocated cutting foreign aid to countries who owed unpaid parking fines to the City of New York. Senator Clinton was obviously incensed by the fact that diplomats were abusing their privilege. Diplomatic immunity was never intended to allow diplomats to violate traffic laws of the host country, or for that matter, commit murders. She registered her discontent with diplomatic immunity and argued that it was not "acceptable for foreign diplomats and consular officials to hide behind diplomatic and consular immunity to park in illegal spaces in New York City and avoid paying parking tickets. It is my hope that this legislation will ensure that the City gets the money that it is owed." Senators Clinton and Schumer were successful in amending the 2005 congressional Foreign Operations Bill in the Senate that froze foreign aid to countries by amounts they owed New York City in parking ticket violations and unpaid property taxes. I am not suggesting that parking violations could or should be ignored. As a professor of transport management, I understand how illegally parked vehicles impede traffic, cause congestion, and cost billions in lost productivity. In fact, in 2006 when the US Embassy in London racked up over £1 million in unpaid congestion charges, the peeved Mayor of London, Ken Livingston, called the American ambassador Robert Tuttle, who owned a car dealership and raised $200,000 for President George W. Bush's election campaign, a 'chiselling little crook'. What I do not understand is how can one justify waiving diplomatic immunity for a misdemeanour, i.e., a parking violation, and insist on invoking it for violating the sixth commandment, thou shalt not kill, for a person whose diplomatic credentials are dubious at best, and whose culpability is beyond doubt. Granting Mr. Davis diplomatic immunity will deny the judicial system in Pakistan the opportunity to determine the circumstances that lead to the two murders. The courts need to establish if Mr. Davis is indeed a diplomat, and not a contract worker or a mercenary employed by the US consulate in Lahore. The courts need to determine that if Mr. Davis were a diplomat, where was he stationed in the past or what school he attended to prepare for a career in foreign diplomacy. The courts need to ascertain if he indeed was acting in self-defence when he shot the two men riding away on a motorbike through the windshield of his car. The courts need to determine if he indeed was on diplomatic business at the time he shot the two men. I have spoken with senior Pakistani diplomats in North America who have confirmed that Mr. Davis was issued an official business visa, which is reserved for contractors and lower-level staff serving in foreign missions in Pakistan. This does not make Mr. Davis eligible for diplomatic immunity in the first place. I contacted Ambassador Hussain Haqqani in Washington, DC, to determine the status of Mr. Davis' now controversial visa. Mr. Haqqani has chosen not to respond. I have, however, enjoyed better correspondence with Ambassador Haqqani when he was a fellow academic. While the US has always by default demanded immunity from prosecution for its diplomats serving in foreign countries, she has been stingy in reciprocating the favour. When the shoe is on the other foot, the US administration reacts completely in the opposite. Instead of honouring diplomatic immunity, it pressures countries to waive diplomatic immunity for the diplomats accused of wrongdoings in the United States. In 1987, a car driven by the ambassador of Papua New Guinea, Kiatro Abisinito, hit four other cars in Washington, DC. The ambassador invoked diplomatic immunity. However, the US Attorneys prepared a criminal case against the ambassador for operating a vehicle while being intoxicated. Consider the case of Georgian diplomat, Gueorgui Makharadze, who in 1997 killed a 16-year old girl in a fatal traffic accident in the US. The diplomat invoked diplomatic immunity and was ready to leave when the Georgian President, Eduard Shevardnadze, ordered the diplomat to stay in the United States and face criminal charges. Mr. Makharadze was convicted by a court and served time in an American prison. Pakistan will not be the first country to question the doctrines of diplomatic immunity in cases where diplomats have been accused of not just misdemeanours, such as parking violations, but are accused of heinous crimes, such as murder. Former US Secretary of Defense, Caspar Weinberger, pointed out circumstances that warranted "limits to the doctrines of diplomatic immunity." While addressing a conference organized by the American Bar Association in June 1986, Mr Weinberger unequivocally declared that a "diplomatic title must not confer a license to murder." Several American legislators have tried to restrict diplomatic immunity in cases where diplomats were accused of serious crimes, such as murder and rape. In 1984, Senator Arlen Specter presented a Bill to renegotiate the Vienna Convention to eliminate diplomatic immunity for diplomats accused of murder. Later in 1987, US Congressman Stephen J. Solarz introduced a Bill to limit the diplomatic immunity, which he termed untenable and unacceptable to grant to those accused of murder. While the American public representatives have tried to restrict diplomatic immunity for others, they have fought tooth and nail to seek immunity for their own diplomats when they stood accused of committing serious crimes. There are several examples of American diplomats leaving without trial even after being accused of committing murders. According to New York Times' archives, a US Embassy employee, Martha D. Patterson, was accused of complicity in poisoning to death a USSR citizen in July 1977. Ms. Peterson was freed however after she invoked diplomatic immunity. Later in 2002, Samuel Karmilowicz, an employee with the US Embassy in Quito, Ecuador, shot and killed an Ecuadorian national Pablo Jaramillo after crashing his car into the taxi carrying Mr. Jaramillo. The American diplomat left Ecuador soon afterwards invoking diplomatic immunity. It is however, not without precedent that a country revoked diplomatic immunity for diplomats of other countries. In 1944, England cancelled diplomatic immunity for foreign diplomats and their staff. Only diplomats from the Commonwealth countries, the Soviet Union and the United States were permitted to retain diplomatic immunity. In 2002 in England, the Colombian Embassy waived diplomatic immunity for a sergeant-major and his son who were caught on CCTV stabbing to death a 23 year old man outside a supermarket in West London. Initially, the Colombian diplomat, who was an assistant to the Colombian military attaché, and his son were granted immunity from prosecution. The Colombians claimed that they acted in self-defence after being mugged by the deceased. The Colombians were however acquitted of murder by a British court after it was established that they indeed acted in self-defence. It is also not without precedent that the US government has waived immunity for its diplomats or contractors employed by the US foreign missions. In 1995, the US government waived diplomatic immunity for David Duchow, a contract employee with the US embassy in Bolivia, who was accused of stealing a truck-load of fuel. Mr. Duchow in retaliation sued the US government for waiving his diplomatic immunity. Indulge me for a second and imagine if the situation was reversed and a Pakistani diplomat stood accused of shooting to death two young men in SoHo, New York. Given that Mrs. Clinton was unwilling to pardon diplomats accused of parking violations, it is highly likely that she would have opposed granting immunity to a Pakistani diplomat accused of committing multiple murders in broad daylight and in the presence of dozens of eye witnesses. She would have insisted that the true identity and the status of the accused be first determined. She would have wanted the US courts to determine if the Pakistani diplomat acted in self-defence or was he a trigger-happy fellow who got spooked and started shooting. She would not have allowed the Pakistani diplomat to touch the tarmac at the JFK Airport. I also wonder how President Obama would react in this situation. Would he be as statesmanlike as the former Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze and instruct Mr. Raymond Davis to stay in Pakistan and plead his case in a court of law. Or would Mr. Obama choose to be more like the Russian Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin, who refused to waive diplomatic immunity for a Russian diplomat stationed in Canada who in 2001 killed one woman and injured another while driving a car while being intoxicated? Given Mr. Obama's recent foreign policy choices, I see more of Putin in him than a statesman. |
| Two members of Hizb ut-Tahrir matryed by the butchers of Karimov and NATO Posted: 15 Feb 2011 12:20 PM PST The fruit of the tyrant Karimov's visit to Brussels Two members of Hizb ut-Tahrir matryed by the butchers of Karimov and NATO A mere week after the visit of the tyrant Islam Karimov to Brussels, his torture and repression of Muslims in Uzbekistan continues unabated. Karimov went to Brussels and meet with NATO Secretary-General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the European Commission President, José Manuel Barroso, and EU Energy Commissioner Gunther Oettinger. He was given a red-carpet welcome and promised more financial aid in appreciation of his efforts in fighting terrorism. Less than a week later the administration of the infamous Yaslik prison in Uzbekistan delivered two corpses of members of Hizb ut-Tahrir - one from the city of Andijan and the other from Ferghana – claiming that they had died from heart disease. The administration of Yaslik prison also randomly increased the prison terms of other members whose sentence was nearing its end. One member, Shukrullah, was given sixteen more years, whilst another, Shaukat, was given another three, and both were transferred to an ex-offenders prison. At other prisons such as Navoi, prison administrations have started giving prisoners from the members of Hizb ut-Tahrir medications and forcing them to take it in front of prison guards. These medications have 'made in America' written on them and they resemble bread dough in their colour and form. It has been noted by prisoners that whoever takes this medication more than once begins to lose their strength and sensorial ability day-by-day. From among these prisoners are those who have memorised the noble Qur'an, which they memorized in their long stay in prison. It has also been noted that many prisoners go beyond simply losing strength and sensorial ability, and lose their sanity. They are then transferred to state-run hospitals. This is but part of the horrifying reality of what happens under Karimov in Uzbekistan; a reality of which Western leaders are well aware. Western governments have not forgotten at all the massacre of thousands in Andijan in 2005. However they justify turning a blind eye to Karimov's crimes on grounds of it being a cheap and necessary price to pay for the continuation of their alliance with him in the invasion of Afghanistan. It seems difficult for those who have built their civilization on the massacre of the Red Indians in America, and those who persisted in supporting tyrants in Egypt, Tunisia, Pakistan and other Muslim lands for decades, to properly criticise or sever ties with Karimov. Nonetheless will they have no shame at all given their claims of democratic values and human rights of which they sing day and night?! Or is hypocrisy a basic tenet of their wretched imperial thought?! In any case, Hizb ut-Tahrir has not and will not depend on these people for anything. Its members have a covenant with Allah to believe in Him and rely on Him. They will not relent or soften, by the Will of Allah, in fighting falsehood and its patrons until Allah (swt) gives victory to this Ummah, and He is the best of liberators. "Allah has ordained, "I shall most certainly prevail, I and My messengers!". Indeed Allah is Strong, Mighty." Osman Bakhach Central Media Office of Hizb ut-Tahrir Tel: 00961 1 30 75 94 Mobile: 00961 71 72 40 43 |
| Video: Osman Bakhach (Hizb ut-Tahrir) and others discuss Yemen unrest 2011 Posted: 15 Feb 2011 02:12 AM PST Osman Bakhach (Hizb ut-Tahrir's Central Media Office) and others debate uprising in Yemen following revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt. Click here to view the embedded video. |
| China: Rising Dragon or paper Tiger Posted: 15 Feb 2011 02:11 AM PST The rise of China masks a flawed economic model repeating the mistakes of the capitalist west China has now officially become the world's largest economy after the US, replacing Japan, which for over three decades held that official title. Today it has become difficult to not notice the rise of China. It has replaced Germany as the world's largest exporter and now even consumes more Saudi oil then the USA. In the last decade many analysts have viewed the rise of China as America's biggest challenge and some thinkers foresee China as the world's superpower in the not so distant future. The rapid rise of China on the global map in the last 30 years has shocked many, bewildered others and for some marks the shift of global power. Some have even touted a new model for economic development called the 'the China Model.' China today produces most of the world's consumer goods and for many represents an alternative to the exploitative West. Chinese economic development is leading to a geopolitical shift from the west to the east as Western economies teeter on the brink of a second recession in as many years. Many are looking to China to replace the US as the world's leading economy in the not so distant future. With this in mind we make the following observations:
Whilst China has made significant advances, we need to ask is its rapid growth sustainable. Capitalists examples of malaise and failure are abound. The US itself pursued the same trajectory of export driven growth through the 1970's and 1980's, which all came to a crashing halt as its asset bubble burst. While the US is today still the world's largest economy it is also the world largest debtor nation, deeply poverty stricken, energy dependent with a currency a fraction of its value only a few decades ago. Japan, another so-called miracle capitalist economy, has been at a state of economic loss for nearly two decades. The world needs the Islamic economy system; a stable economic system that achieves sustainable economic growth without the bubbles and crashes all too often seen under capitalism; a system that priorities people who are unable to fulfil their needs rather then leaving them to the vulnerability of the free market. A system that focuses on the distribution of wealth rather then the never ending pursuit of wealth for its own sake as in the capitalist model. |
| An Islamic Constitution for Egypt Posted: 14 Feb 2011 11:29 PM PST The Egyptian military has announced that it has suspended the country's constitution and dissolved parliament. The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, which is effectively the provisional authority in Egypt is comprised of the country's top generals and will remain in power for six months, or until elections. The council has remained very vague on the specifics of dealing with the issue of elections, which, coupled with the suspension of the constitution may create anxiety among the protesters that brought down the Mubarak regime. It is likely that expert lawyers will be brought in to construct a new constitution, with the US, military and other domestic stakeholders all attempting to shape the new constitution. Hizb ut Tahrir the pan Islamic global party on its establishment in 1952 constructed a draft constitution and amended in 1977 called the "Muqadimatud-Dustur Aw al-Asbabul Mujibatulah," the Introduction to the Constitution and the reasons which make it obligatory. For a constitution to be Islamic it must contain some key articles: 1. The Islamic 'Aqeeda constitutes the foundation of the State. Therefore, nothing is permitted to exist in the State's structure, system, accountability, or any other aspect connected with the State that does not take the Islamic 'Aqeeda as its source. The Islamic 'Aqeeda is also the source of the State's laws. Consequently, nothing related to them is permitted to exist unless it emanates from the Islamic 'Aqeeda. 2. The only evidences to be considered as sources for divine rules (ahkam Sharia) are: the Quran, the Sunnah, the unanimity of the Companions (ijma'a as-Sahaba) and analogy (Qiyas); legislation cannot be taken from any source other than these evidences. 3. All citizens will be treated equally regardless of their religion, race, colour or any other factor. The State will not discriminate between citizens in any matter, such as ruling, judiciary or welfare. 4. Every individual is innocent until proven guilty. No person shall be punished without a court sentence. Torture is absolutely forbidden. Whoever inflicts torture on anyone shall be punished. 5. Accounting the rulers is a right for the Muslims and a Fard Kifayah upon the Muslim Ummah. Non-Muslim citizens have the right to voice their complaints for any injustices or misapplication of the Islamic rules upon them by the rulers. Download full constitution here [PDF] |
| Weekly Circle: Lessons from the recent uprisings in the Middle East Posted: 14 Feb 2011 08:40 AM PST Every Saturday afternoon, in central London, members of Hizb ut Tahrir discuss issues affecting Muslims. The audio below presents a public address on the topic: Lessons from the recent uprisings in the Middle East by Abu Harith on 12th February 2011. This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "World_Politics" group.
To post to this group, send email to world_politics@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to world_politics+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/world_politics?hl=en.
--
Palash Biswas
Pl Read:
http://nandigramunited-banga.blogspot.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment