ADAM RASHEED AHMED
Do you know who is ARUVAALI AADHANU must be a really a bad guy. No worries good or bad ARUVAALI means banished AADHANU means ADAM.
I was banished as POLITICAL PRISONER twice during 30 years of DICTATORSHIP & NEPOTISM from 1978 to 2009
David Plouffe was the campaign manager for Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. After winning the election on Nov. 4, President-elect Obama credited Plouffe in his acceptance speech, calling him “the unsung hero of this campaign, who built the . . . best political campaign, I think, in the history of the United States of America.”
Plouffe is credited with the campaign’s successful overall strategy in the race for the Democratic Party presidential nomination. He was credited by The New Republic for Obama’s success in the Iowa caucus and for crafting an overall strategy to prolong the primary past Super Tuesday. The Chicago Tribune writes, “Plouffe was the mastermind behind a winning strategy that looked well past Super Tuesday’s contests on Feb. 5 and placed value on large and small states.” Plouffe also maintained discipline over communications in the campaign, including controlling leaks and releasing information about the campaign on its terms. Averse to publicity himself, Plouffe’s control over the internal workings of the Obama campaign successfully avoided the publicly aired squabbles that frequently trouble other campaigns.
In May 2008, David Axelrod praised Plouffe, stating that he had “done the most magnificent job of managing a campaign that I’ve seen in my life of watching presidential politics. To start something like this from scratch and build what we have built was a truly remarkable thing.”
Plouffe began his political career when he went to work for Senator Tom Harkin’s 1990 re-election campaign. He later worked as a state field director for Harkin’s unsuccessful 1992 presidential campaign. In the same year, he successfully managed Congressman John Olver’s first re-election bid in western Massachusetts. In 1994, Plouffe managed Delaware Attorney General Charles M. Oberly’s unsuccessful campaign against Senator William V. Roth. Plouffe then worked as campaign director for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in 1995. In 1996, Plouffe managed Bob Torricelli’s successful campaign to fill Bill Bradley’s New Jersey seat in the United States Senate.
From 1997 to 1998, Plouffe served as Democratic leader Dick Gephardt’s Deputy Chief of Staff. From 1999 to 2000, as executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Plouffe led a national campaign that led the Democrats closer to the majority.
In the winter of 2000, Plouffe joined AKPD Message and Media, but left briefly to serve as a strategist for Gephardt’s unsuccessful Presidential bid. He returned to the firm and became a partner in February 2004. Beginning in 2003, Plouffe and fellow AKPD partner David Axelrod worked on Barack Obama’s 2004 Illinois Senate campaign, beginning Plouffe’s association with Obama. Plouffe worked with Axelrod on Deval Patrick’s successful 2006 campaign for Governor of Massachusetts.
The courage of eleven soldiers lead by Capt. Moosa Ali Jalee & Late Cpl. Hussain Adam THE HERO IN TIME & THE HERO FOR EVER
The courage of eleven soldiers lead by Capt. Moosa Ali Jaleel (now Brigadier) who went out on a recon mission outside the side gates while still under fire. The section lost four of their colleagues to enemy fire. These soldiers managed to complete their mission and re-enter the HQ still under fire.
Late Cpl. Hussain Adam THE HERO IN TIME & THE HERO FOR EVER
Today we honor Cpl. Hussain Adam for the brave return of fire, which gave the HQ personnel time to get over the surprise attack of the enemy. Instead of hiding inside the guard-post, he opened fire at the enemy, pushing back their advance and giving our forces time to plan and retaliate. Cpl. Hussain Adam did save our independence on the day by giving away the advantage of surprise the enemy had.
Our forces actually fought and protected this nation. Even under the hail of bullets and explosives, the soldiers inside fought bravely; the NSS-HQ was never taken.
The 50th Independent Para Regiment of the Indian Army under, Col. S.C. Joshi, who landed in the Maldives, knowing the threat. The Indian Naval vessels INS Godavari and INS Tir did a commendable work in capturing the mercenaries and securing most of the hostages.
Political writer & Editor Adam Rasheed Ahmed can be reach: wowmaldives@yahoo.com wowmaldives@gmail.com
Sawad-Thoyyib-Maldives by Ibrahim Mohamed, Minivan News
A minister and state minister were summoned to the police station for questioning on the request of criminal court following a poll on state television earlier this month, which the court deemed disrespectful towards the judiciary.
Dr Ahmed Ali Sawad, the minister of tourism, arts and culture, and Thoyyib Mohamed Waheed, the state minister, were questioned along with the programme’s presenter, Adam Miqdhah, and Ibrahim Khaleel, the managing director of the Maldives National Broadcasting Corporation.
The court requested a police investigation on 10 June after Television Maldives (TVM) aired a programme, “Q&A with Miqdhah”, asking viewers whether they thought the ongoing legal dispute over Herathera Resort remained unresolved because the courts were too slow; 70 per cent of viewers said yes.
Speaking to Minivan News today, Sawad said police informed him they wanted to verify a few details, but he chose to remain silent.
“I was quite surprised. I didn’t expect it in this day and age, when we are struggling for our fundamental rights for freedom.”
Sawad said he could not comment on the programme as he had not watched it.
Miqdad said he too chose to remain silent during the police interrogation. He added he was unsure whether the investigation was being conducted because of the views expressed on the show or the poll.
TVM Deputy General Mohamed Asif said he did not understand why the investigation was necessary.
“From Haveeru Daily, I learnt that the judge wanted to clarify whether we had disrespected the court on purpose,” he said.
In an interview with the newspaper on 11 June, Judge Abdullah Mohamed said the poll would tarnish the reputation of the judiciary and foster a perception that the courts were incompetent.
The president’s office released a statement today, expressing concern over Sawad being questioned by police.
“At a time when international parties have noted that the media is very free in the Maldives and are congratulating the country for it, the president believes incidents like this could negatively impact their view of the country,” the statement reads. “Further, this is an obstacle to ministers freely carrying out their responsibilities.”
Protecting Ex-president is not a only DRP's responsible.
President Mohamed Nasheed say's ex-President Qayyoom must be protected accordingly.
Ex legal reform minister has different school of thought in legal ZIETGEIST.
Let's see what ex minister say's in his POLITICAL BLOG.
I don’t believe that anyone can be immune from the application of criminal laws – whether president or peasant.
All privileges and all benefits otherwise available to a person due to an office he holds in the country such as president, minister, judge or parliamentarian or any other public official ceases where criminal law begins.
Put another way, every person is liable for any crimes he may commit, or any laws he may breach.
But there may be different ways to deal with different office holders. This does not negative or defeat the “equality principle” which says that each person shall be equal before the law.
Equality principle is sometimes misconstrued in the media and even amongst politicians to hold that the president or commoner, public official or not, everyone must be subject to the same standards and processes.
Equality principle does not mean that. Any student of constitutional law would know that the principle simply means “like cases must be treated alike”.
People placed in identical or similar circumstances must be subject to equal application of the laws, and there shall not be any discrimination in the manner they are treated.
Returning to the issue of prosecution, it is my firm belief that a serving president or past president must be held responsible for any breaches of the law or crimes he may have committed while as president.
The constitution is clear in article 6 of it that a president is to govern the country in accordance with the constitution. He is asked to rule within the perimeters of the constitution.
It means that his powers need to be exercised within the bounds of constitution and law. It also means that the moment he transgresses a law he is deemed to have exceeded his remit as president; is exposed to legal liability; and must be held accountable for his deeds. That process of accountability must never be closed or prevented or restricted.
But there may be different ways to deal with that liability.
For example, the current Maldives constitution, in article 127, says that if a serving president is accused of a crime he committed while in office or even before assuming office, his prosecution for that offence may be postponed till he ends his term, if the parliament resolves it necessary to do so.
When I look at the draft of the disputed provision in the controversial bill on ex-presidents, in view of the arguments made against it, I don’t think that the draft actually reflects the concerns which have been generated in the media or expressed by some politicians.
Draft bill in section 9 focuses simply on protection from acts or omissions committed “as president”. It neither gives a president carte blanche authority to commit crimes while in office nor does it afford an ex-president such a blanket cover to hide behind presidential immunity.
My reading of the substance of that provision is this: if a president leaves office without being held to have committed a wrong, he shall not be subjected to any prosecution or enquiry in respect of any act or omission committed in his capacity as president.
I read it to be a protection against vexatious and frivolous claims. I read it not to be as any protection from criminal liability.
Said another way, I read the bill simply to mean that an ex-president cannot be held liable for the manner in which he had exercised his executive discretion.
It is undisputed that neither the constitution nor the law affords him any protection against any act committed or omitted in violation of the constitution or law – simple because the law gives him power to govern according to the constitution.
While I believe that none can be protected from criminal liability or prosecution, I admit that executive discretion must be protected.
Let’s take an example. While there may be a large number of people who may not have liked the current president to privatize the country’s international airport, he cannot be exposed to any litigation or inquiry because of that, as he did not commit an offence prescribed by law.
He may be subject to criticism in a public court of opinion, but not to conviction in a court of law.
This president may have waived with a single stroke of his pen nearly Rf 600 million worth of otherwise receivable tourism related revenue in December last year as an act of compassion towards certain tourist resort owners. He cannot be held liable if he has not breached a law.
The president cannot either be quizzed or tried for creating utility companies in the manner he has decided to do so, if he has not breached a law.
Simply for one reason – all of it is within his executive discretion or presidential prerogative.
Similarly, there must be several acts within a thirty year rule, where the ex-president can be pulled up for his acts or omissions. I recall one from a press release of the presidential commission.
Why did the ex-president decide to partner with Malaysian Helicopter Services instead of Emirates to create Air Maldives? That is totally within his discretion as head of state, and he cannot be questioned on that. That is no breach of a law. That is an exercise of his presidential discretion.
It may not be to the liking of a large number of people. And in hindsight, it may not also have proved to be a worthy effort. But criminal inquiry or prosecution would fail on that, for absence of a breach of law.
Therefore, in approaching or understanding draft section 9 of the bill on ex-presidents, we need to appreciate the difference between acts which are against a law and acts which are disliked but within the prerogative of a head of state.
While there cannot be immunity from legally wrong acts, there ought to be every protection given to safeguarding decisions made within the remit of presidential discretion. Otherwise, one cannot govern at all.
And this is a protection we afford not to presidents alone. We give similar immunity from suit to members of independent commissions and offices as well. If you look at laws on Human Rights Commission, Anti-Corruption Commission, and Prosecutor General you would come across protection from court battles being granted in relation to what they do in their capacity as those office holders.
My conclusion is this: whether or not, section 9 of the bill on ex-presidents survives the criticism it has encountered, Maumoon Abdul Gayoom can still be subject to criminal inquiry of a presidential commission or criminal prosecution in a court of law in respect of any act he may have committed against a law during his tenure as president. But the three constitutions under which he had served would protect him from being questioned on any decision falling within presidential prerogative.
The disputed bill is no cover to exposing the ex-president to criminal prosecution or inquiry in respect of a crime or legal wrong. The draft bill proposes to protect him only to the extent of acts or omissions committed as president, that is to say, in his capacity as president and within the constitution, and in the exercise of his executive discretion and prerogative.
That is all. And if that meaning is not clear for all alike, I propose that the draft be further improved to spell out just that in precise terms.
WHO SAY'S DRP is a FAN CLUB for Ex-president Abdull Qayyoom.
A fan club is a group that is dedicated to a well known person, group, idea (such as history) or sometimes even an inanimate object (such as a famous building). Most fan clubs are run by fans that devote considerable time and resources to supporting them. There are also "official" fan clubs that are run by someone associated with the person or organization the club is centered around. This is the case for many musicians, soccer teams and more.
Functions as an organization:
Larger fan clubs may organize events and fundraising relating to what they are based on. In some cases the money that is raised goes directly to the people the fan club is based around.
DRP Mr.Nihan (MP) has submitted a bill protecting the ex presidents of MALDIVES. The young & old (MP)'s of DRP was really busy these days.
PROTECTING THE PRESIDENT is a taught job no matter present or ex.
The most of the Maldivian public & president MOHAMED NASHEED is very positive to provide protection to Ex-president Abdull Qayyoom.
Lots of Maldivians has changed their POLITICAL MOOD now. Why DRP parliament group has mentioned in this bill Abdull Qayyoom or Ex-presidents cannot bring to justice.
This was really a turning point. Public gathered in front of PARLIAMENT HOUSE & MDP members, non political party independent members raised their voice & alert whole nation.
MDP young MP Mr.Shifaz claimed he feel's & understand from this bill "NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW" simply not true, all people are equal but some are more equal than others.
The reality is young MP's of DRP & its members feel ABDULL QAYYOOM to retire completely from POLITICS.
MDP MP's & its member has same MODE & MOOD of thinking & claimed DRP is not presently acting as OPPOSITION PARTY it seem to be EX-PRESIDENT AL USTHAAZ MAUMOON ABDULL QAYYOM's FAN CLUB.
Writer can be reach: Adam Rasheed Ahmed Editor & Political Writer wowmaldives@yahoo.com wowmaldives@gmail.com
Indian help Maldives in 3rd Nov 1988 PLOTE TERROR ATTACK
